Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Retained Firefighters

Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement on the recruitment of retained firefighters.

Nick Raynsford: Each fire brigade is responsible for recruiting its own retained firefighters. Our office recognises the vital role taken by retained staff in meeting the needs of many parts of the country and we are working with the fire service actively to encourage people to become retained firefighters. We are considering carefully the recommendations on retained firefighters made by the independent review of the fire service.

Huw Edwards: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he share my appreciation of the vital role that retained fire officers play in rural areas, although the nature of the retained service is often not fully appreciated by the public, who often do not realise that being a firefighter is a second job for the retained firefighters? Does he agree that, to improve recruitment, we need to give retained fire officers the same hourly rate as the full-time service, the same opportunities for training and the decent pension scheme, which they do not currently have?

Nick Raynsford: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the very important work of retained firefighters. I, too, pay tribute to the contribution that they make towards the safety of the public in many parts of the country.
	As my hon. Friend will know, the Bain review recommended a number of important improvements for retained firefighters, including the ones that he has mentioned. We are considering all these matters carefully and a further statement will be made in the White Paper, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has promised that we will publish early in the new year.

Edward Davey: Given that the Retained Firefighters Union is not on strike and that its members are not being represented at the ACAS negotiations, why is the Minister so confident that the eventual settlement will give the retained firefighters the decent pay deal that they deserve? Does he not share my concern that the Fire Brigades Union has not represented the retained firefighters properly in the negotiations so far? Why is he so confident that the eventual settlement will give them the pay deal that will solve the recruitment crisis in the retained firefighters service?

Nick Raynsford: As I made clear in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), the Bain review sets out a number of very important proposals in relation to retained firefighters. As I have already said, we are very much minded to proceed on the basis of the Bain review and will set out our responses in the White Paper that we will publish. The responses will cover issues of negotiation and the representation of retained firefighters as well as of full-time firefighters. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are, in effect, two separate unions, one of which represents only retained firefighters. The FBU also represents some retained firefighters and the issues need to be clarified. We will address them in the White Paper.

David Taylor: I welcome my right hon. Friend's appreciation of the value of retained firefighters. However, is it not the case that there are at least 3,000 to 4,000 fewer retained firefighters than are needed to maintain an adequate response time in rural and urban areas? The retained fee works out after tax at about 15p per hour. Should there not be a national recruitment campaign? Do not retained firefighters need more than just warm words?

Nick Raynsford: Retained firefighters represent just under a third of the total force of firefighters in the country. We wholly share my hon. Friend's concern to ensure more effective recruitment of retained firefighters. We are already engaged in the preparation of publicity material to assist in that process, and we are looking closely at the trials that have been conducted in areas such as south Wales to improve the recruitment of retained firefighters. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we are very well seized of the importance of helping to recruit more retained firefighters, who do such a crucial job in many parts of the country.

Domestic Violence

Shona McIsaac: If he will make a statement on the supporting people programme for tackling domestic violence.

Barbara Roche: The supporting people programme will bring major improvements to the quality of housing-related support services for vulnerable groups, including people experiencing domestic violence. Specialist co-ordinators on domestic violence are working closely with local authorities and providers to offer support and raise awareness.

Shona McIsaac: I welcome my hon. Friend's recent announcement of #9 million extra to deal with domestic violence. Will she tell us in more detail what is involved in the projects? Will they impact, for example, on the Grimsby women's refuge, which has only 10 places for women who are victims of domestic violence?

Barbara Roche: What happened last week was an important announcement. Together with organisations such as Women's Aid and Refuge, and with the backing of Comic Relief, which has made its largest domestic donation, we have given funds so that we have, for the first time, a national helpline for those suffering from domestic violence. As well as that funding, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has given #7 million to help the Housing Corporation fund refuge places. As far as the refuge is concerned, I believe that it covers Cleethorpes and our money will bolster any bid that it may submit to the Housing Corporation. At the end of the process, we will consider the geographic coverage to see what other unmet need there may be.

Eric Pickles: Earlier this year, the Opposition were pleased to support a change in the law that gave people who suffer from domestic violence priority in local authority housing. The hon. Lady will know, not least from constituency cases that I have raised with her, that that message has not got through to local authorities, some of which do not seem to have grasped that it involves moving people across local authority boundaries. In a perversion of the Christmas message, domestic violence will almost certainly double this time next week, as it did last Christmas. Notwithstanding a need to issue guidance to local authorities, will she give the clearest message to them, at this crucial time, that accommodating people who suffer from domestic violence sometimes involves them crossing local authority boundaries?

Barbara Roche: I am happy to do so. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the issue. I know that he takes a keen interest in it. Guidance is available on the supporting people programme. He will know that draft guidance on the priority need order has also been made available. The final guidance will be issued once we have analysed the results of the consultation. There is a firm message to local authorities that the subject is a priority and that they must work together. The strongest message we can send out from both sides of the House to perpetrators of domestic violence is that it will not be tolerated.

Glenda Jackson: Is it not the case, however, that many extremely good organisations already exist to deal with that problem, although they do not concentrate exclusively on the housing needs of women and their families who flee domestic violence? For example, Camden Safety Net in my borough works well across many departments. How will they access the additional support offered in the supporting people programme?

Barbara Roche: Victims of domestic violence are one category of the supporting people programme. There are other categories for other vulnerable groups. It is interesting to note that, when we analyse the figures nationally of people who present themselves as homeless, 16 per cent. show a connection with domestic violence. The project that my hon. Friend mentions will definitely benefit from the national helpline.

Debt and Financial Exclusion

Archy Kirkwood: If he will ask the social exclusion unit to conduct a review of debt and financial exclusion.

Barbara Roche: Our approach for a more inclusive society is to address the root causes of poverty and social exclusion. Improving financial inclusion is central to this. Decisions on future unit projects will be made shortly.

Archy Kirkwood: Will the Minister reconsider the possibility of producing a further report on current levels of debt, especially in low-income households? The evidence shows that their debt is spiralling out of control, and many of those families cannot cope either with the level of indebtedness or the rates of interest that they have to pay at the hands of loan sharks. Will she undertake to carry out a cross-departmental review to help such families to get out of the debt that they are in?

Barbara Roche: I certainly recognise the situation that the hon. Gentleman presents. The Department of Trade and Industry is reviewing the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to crack down on loan sharks and it will publish proposals in the new year. It is also important that we carry out work on credit unions, which have increased considerably since 1997, and implement pilot initiatives to discover how community-based organisations can get involved in such work. I shall certainly give careful consideration to his representations.

David Clelland: I support what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) had to say about loan sharks. Is my hon. Friend aware of a constituent of mine whose original borrowing of #7,500 has now increased to #43,000? The company demanding that money, Provident Financial, has made a profit of #700 million over the last five years, all on the back of the most vulnerable people in deprived communities. Something must be done about that, and urgently.

Barbara Roche: My hon. Friend is right; there are some absolutely disgraceful cases, which is why the community finance and learning initiative is so important. Those pilot schemes promote financial education and good practice so that we can crack down on loan sharks, who cause a great deal of disruption to our community and feed off vulnerable people.

Planning

Peter Lilley: If he will make a statement on how he intends to improve the involvement of local communities in planning decisions.

John Prescott: The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill will, subject to parliamentary approval, require all local planning authorities to produce a statement of community involvement setting out what the authority will do to involve the community in preparing local development documents and in their consideration of planning applications.
	In addition, we will provide Planning Aid with significant funding over the next three years to enable it to become more proactive and to develop a greater role in targeting communities that traditionally do not get involved in the planning system.

Peter Lilley: How can the Deputy Prime Minister explain his decision to take out of the hands of elected county and district councils in Hertfordshire and North Hertfordshire key decisions about housing, especially as he previously justified the approval of a plan to build 10,000 houses on the green belt on the grounds that the decision was endorsed by the elected Labour party that was then in power and that there were no other sites? Now a Conservative group has taken power and found alternative sites, so why is the right hon. Gentleman overriding local democracy, and why he is determined to concrete over the green belt?

John Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman's recollection of that application is somewhat limited. He will know that we do not make a judgment according to whether a Labour or Tory council has made the decision; we have planning inspectors to make independent judgments. They made that recommendation, and I accepted it.

Richard Younger-Ross: Why is the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to community involvement so poor? He was recently asked whether he would call in a planning application in which a district council gave itself consent to develop its own land, despite the fact that all the people of the town, Teignmouth, asked for the application to be called in.

John Prescott: There are many thousands of applications on planning inquiries which bear my name, but as the hon. Gentleman will know from the process, I am not aware of any individual case. I will look at the matter that he mentioned and write to him, provided that the planning procedure has been completed and that I am not interfering in the process.

David Davis: The Deputy Prime Minister's White Paper on regional government was entitled XYour Region, Your Choice", but it is clear from the two Bills already before the House that the Government intend to remove the planning powers from county councils, whether or not there is a referendum and irrespective of the result of any referendum. Why are the people not being given a say in this vital aspect of local government? Should not the White Paper have been entitled XYour Region, No Choice"? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is far too noisy. If hon. Members want to chat, they can leave the Chamber.

John Prescott: I always find it very difficult to understand the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, because it was a previous Conservative Government who abolished county councils without any consultation, along with their planning powers and everything else. We made it clear in our White Paper that it is for the people to choose, and we will give them a referendum. The Conservatives did not do that when they abolished county councils.

David Davis: Well, I did not think that I would get a proper answer to that, so I am not surprised. In the spirit of Christmas, I shall try something a little easier. Yesterday, it became apparent that the Government intend to add insult to injury for county councils. The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), told the House that the regional planning bodies would be funded by central Government to the tune of #6 million. In Committee yesterday, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said that the money would be taken from county councils. Which one is right?

John Prescott: Those bodies will be financed by central Government.

Planning

Keith Vaz: If he will make a statement on third-party rights in the planning process.

Christopher Leslie: The views of interested parties are taken into account in drawing up development plans and when reaching decisions on individual applications. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill contains new measures that give local residents and third parties greater opportunities to participate more effectively in the planning process.

Keith Vaz: I am sure that the Minister agrees that unlimited involvement by third parties in the planning process will paralyse the whole system. However, does he accept that a limited right at major inquiries, perhaps funded by the taxpayer, would ensure that third-party objectors can put their views across in a focused way, thus shortening those long inquiries?

Christopher Leslie: I have heard what my hon. Friend has said about the need to support residents and interested parties, especially in larger-scale applications. I believe that there are prospects of more support, not only from our announcement about funding for Planning Aid, but from changes such as the introduction of mediators in the inquiry process and round-table discussions to make sure that details are fully understood at an early stage of inquiries.

Planning

Tony Clarke: What plans he has to reform the planning system.

Tony McNulty: The Government's programme for the reform of the planning system is set out in XSustainable Communities—Delivering through Planning", published on 18 July 2002. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking to enact reforms that require primary legislation in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, introduced on 4 December 2002 and happily given a Second Reading by the House just yesterday.

Tony Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am sure that many local authorities across the country will welcome the changes in the Bill that we debated yesterday, but many are apprehensive about the financial cost of the transition. Can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that local councils will be supported financially through that transitional period, so that in accepting the change there is no financial penalty for those local authorities?

Tony McNulty: As I have said previously, the legislation that we discussed yesterday is only part of the reform of the planning system, which also includes the review and revision of circulars and policy guidance, and the introduction of #350 million more through the planning delivery grant, which is intended to meet councils' very real concerns, to which my hon. Friend alluded.

Gary Streeter: I am sure that the Minister is aware that all over the country the absence of affordable housing to buy and rent is ripping the heart out of communities. What changes to the planning law does he propose to help the provision of more affordable housing so that local people can afford to live locally? If not through planning, how do the Government intend to help?

Tony McNulty: Given the hon. Gentleman's party and the previous Government's record, I am terribly tempted to say that he has more front than Harrods for even asking the question. On the planning reform package and affordable housing, a review of circular 6/98 will begin in January. However, an effective, responsive, flexible and speedier planning system will also help the process—that goes for the south-west and all the other regions.

Revenue Support Grant

Andrew Turner: What his estimate is of the per capita change in revenue support grant to the Isle of Wight council resulting from his changes to the distribution formula.

Nick Raynsford: Under our proposals, the Isle of Wight council will receive a grant increase of #3.56 million, which is equivalent to almost #27 per head more than in 2002–03.

Andrew Turner: I recognise and welcome that marginal increase in cash terms, but could the Minister explain how the grant settlement takes account of the additional costs of delivering statutory services, such as fire services, on an island, where we cannot get the help from adjoining authorities that we sometimes need. Will he agree to meet with me a group of representatives of the Isle of Wight council to discuss how those needs can more effectively be met?

Nick Raynsford: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that our settlement of course takes account of the special circumstances of his area. He will be aware that in the last four years of the Conservative Government, the Isle of Wight received only a 1 per cent. increase in grant—a real-terms cut—whereas under this Government, it has received a 30 per cent. increase in grant. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring a delegation to discuss with me how his councillors will spend the extra money that we are making available to his authority, he should put that request in writing and we will, of course, consider it.

Council Tax

Vincent Cable: What plans he has for the reform of council tax.

Christopher Leslie: The Local Government Bill contains provisions on council tax revaluation, banding, discounts and exemptions.

Vincent Cable: Is the Minister aware that since the Conservatives introduced council tax nine years ago, the average English council tax bill has risen by more than 70 per cent., and by more than 50 per cent. under the present Government? How do the Government justify dependence on such a regressive tax, unrelated to the ability to pay, to fund a growing percentage of public services?

Christopher Leslie: I shall take that as a representation from the Liberal Democrats in favour of some sort of local income tax, which I understand is their policy. I wonder how many of their constituents appreciate the implications of that policy for them. Council tax is certainly fairer than its predecessor, the poll tax, which some people may still remember, but in our reforms we will take into account how we might be able to make council tax fairer still.

Social Exclusion

Tom Clarke: When he intends to visit Coatbridge and Chryston constituency to discuss social exclusion.

Barbara Roche: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has no current plans to visit the constituency of Coatbridge and Chryston. However, the Government maintain regular contact with the devolved Administrations on issues relating to social exclusion through forums such as the joint ministerial committee on poverty, which I attended in September.

Tom Clarke: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to come to my constituency in the immediate future—he does not know what he is missing. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the credit unions, particularly in Kirkwood and Muirhead, which, despite a huge reduction in unemployment, are helping to make life easier for a substantial number of my constituents?

Barbara Roche: I am very happy to do that, as I know what an interest my right hon. Friend takes in such measures. I believe, as has already been mentioned, that credit unions are incredibly valuable. They can give people real independence. If, by encouraging credit unions, we tackle seriously the problem of financial exclusion that blights many of our communities, we shall be doing all our communities a great service.

Firefighters' Dispute

Joan Humble: What progress has been made towards resolving the firefighters' dispute.

John Prescott: The final report of Sir George Bain's independent review of the fire service, published on Monday, is central to resolving the dispute. On the same day, I made a statement to the House welcoming the report and detailing how the Government will take forward its recommendations. The Government want a fair deal for firefighters and other workers, and a fair deal for the economy. Sir George Bain's report provides the framework for such a deal.

Joan Humble: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the Blackpool firefighters whom I met recently at the Bispham fire station that discussions about modernisation will take into account the local circumstances of towns such as Blackpool, where the firefighters care not only for the resident population, but for 11 million visitors in a town that stays open late into the night entertaining them?

John Prescott: Many of those in the House with experience of Blackpool will understand my hon. Friend's point. We want to give the Blackpool brigade, and every other brigade, every assistance to be more efficient and more effective in their operations. That is why Sir George Bain's recommendations that we should move to more targeted fire cover based on basic risk assessment, and that working practices should be changed, are important. I identified to the House some of the changes that are needed, and I have already made it clear that I intend, as the inquiry recommended, to begin the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Deputy Prime Minister share my concern and surprise that the firefighters have not taken the opportunity to form a considered view of the proposals in the Bain report before calling another strike in the new year? Is that not very regrettable indeed?

John Prescott: I very much agree with what the hon. Lady said. The House will share the hope that all firefighters, at whatever level in the Fire Brigades Union, will take note of what Sir George Bain has said and of what I have said in the House about the changes that the Government will make. I hope that we can all look forward to further discussions in which the report is not treated as irrelevant. It is very relevant and we would like to see a settlement. My advice all the time is to talk, not walk. That remains my advice.

Illegal Camping

Mark Todd: What recent progress has been made in controlling illegal camping.

Tony McNulty: In the early part of next year, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, in conjunction with the Home Office, will issue new guidance on managing unauthorised camping. The guidance is currently in its second phase of consultation with stakeholders. The guidance issued in the new year will include detailed operational guidance and deal with the roles and responsibilities of local authorities and the police in taking action.

Mark Todd: Can we ensure that the decision is made in the very earliest part of next year? In my area, there are typically three illegal occupations at any time, trashing our countryside and having an antisocial impact on local residents. Can we please have the earliest possible conclusion to the consultation?

Tony McNulty: When the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister issued the initial guidance, we took the very clear decision that we wanted substantive consultation, so that when the framework and operational guidance are issued—I hope that that will happen as early as possible in the new year, to satisfy my hon. Friend—they will be agreed to and welcomed by all parties associated with this very serious matter.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

David Heath: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 December.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

David Heath: The Prime Minister will agree that national security far outweighs commercial sensitivity or indeed potential embarrassment. If British companies and individuals are named in the declaration on resolution 1441 as having supplied arms or weapon-making technology or material to Iraq—a country with which every appearance suggests we will soon be at war—why do the British Government refuse to publish their names so that the claims can be investigated?

Tony Blair: The UN resolution concerns the circumstances of the UN's mandate in respect of the inspectors and the ability of this country and others to ensure that Saddam complies with the requirements of the resolution. In respect of any information about companies, we apply exactly the same rules as Governments have always applied, and I think that it is right that we carry on doing so.

Ian Gibson: At the weekend, President Bush declared his intention to offer vaccination against smallpox to every American, with a few exceptions among those with medical conditions. Is that our intention, or do we know something that he does not?

Tony Blair: No. We do not believe that mass vaccination is warranted. We are following the World Health Organisation's guidelines. Our primary strategy in the event of any outbreak will be to contain and ring vaccinate as the first line of defence. However, we do not know of any specific threat, so the sensible thing for us to do is follow the guidelines set out by the WHO, which I think are correct, and that is what we intend to do.

Iain Duncan Smith: The United States has made it clear that it will respond to the Iraqi weapons declaration within days. When will the Government publish their formal response to the declaration? From the evidence that the Prime Minister has seen so far and has already produced, will he say whether he agrees with Colin Powell that scepticism about the Iraqi declaration is well founded?

Tony Blair: We will make a formal response shortly after the Christmas break. In respect of Colin Powell's remarks, most people who have looked at the document, which is obviously very long, are pretty sceptical about the claims that it makes, but it is important that we study it in detail and make a formal and considered response.

Iain Duncan Smith: It is clear—it is certainly in today's papers—that the Government are making preparations for a major deployment in the Gulf. If a decision to deploy is made during the recess, is the Prime Minister prepared to recall Parliament? There is also confusion about whether there might be a vote on deployment. I would urge him to hold a vote on a substantive motion. Will he now agree to do so?

Tony Blair: In respect of any substantive vote, we have made it clear that it would be our intention to do so, although that is, of course, subject to the proviso that the Foreign Secretary set out: nothing must be done that would endanger or imperil our troops should we need to act quickly. The Secretary of State will make a statement about the deployment later. It is a contingency deployment. Our position remains exactly as it has always been: we want the inspectors to do their work, we want Saddam to comply with the UN resolutions, and we use force in circumstances in which there is a breach of the UN mandate.

Chris Pond: Last week, I was told about a child in my constituency who could not sleep, not because she was over-excited about Father Christmas but because she was afraid that some lout might smash the windows of her mum's flat or put a lighted match through the letter box. While I know that the Prime Minister will want to join me in congratulating north Kent police on cutting crime by a further 5 per cent. over the past year, will he assure the mother of that child that he will not let up in his determination to deal with loutish and antisocial behaviour, which still creates a climate of fear? Will he also ensure that the police and local authorities continue to be given the resources they need to tackle the problem, rather than taking the advice of the Conservatives and cutting them?

Tony Blair: First, I can assure my hon. Friend that we will do all that we can to deal with this issue. I congratulate Kent police on their great achievement of reducing crime in the Kent area. The key is simple and effective ways of enforcing the law on antisocial behaviour. That is why it is important that we streamline the antisocial behaviour orders. I also hope that the House will support the measures in the forthcoming Bill to make it far easier to impose fixed penalty notice fines for a range of antisocial behaviour offences, because the law will be used effectively only if there is a simple way of enforcing it.

Charles Kennedy: On Iraq, apart from welcoming the apparent conversion of the leader of the Conservative party to the arguments that Liberal Democrats have been advancing here for a long time, may I ask the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Where is the sense of Christmas spirit in the Conservative party? The Secretary of State for Defence said this morning:
	XIf members of the Security Council judge ultimately that military action is necessary, it is important that"—
	we—
	Xare in a position to take military action."
	He was then asked, however, whether that meant that the UN Security Council would be the final judge of the matter, to which his answer was no. Surely it is important that the Prime Minister should clarify the position.

Tony Blair: The position is as we have always set it out, which is that UN resolution 1441 assumes that there will be a further discussion in the UN Security Council. Of course, it has always been our desire to act with the full authority of the UN Security Council. We have always made it clear, however, that, if there were a breach and if, for any reason, the Security Council were blocked in any way, we do not believe it right that that breach should go unpunished. Those are the circumstances in which it is important to make sure that we do our level best to work with the UN in any way that we can, but the bottom line—as I have set out right from the very beginning—must be that the United Nations route must be the way of dealing with the issue, not the way of avoiding dealing with it. Having said that, I believe that the UN will support action in circumstances in which there has been a breach. That is my belief after talking in detail to the main countries involved in the UN.

Charles Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister for that detailed and serious reply. Will he clarify one further aspect of the matter? The UN weapons inspectorate will complete its task and submit its conclusions and recommendations to the Security Council. If the American Government were, in the interim, to take any kind of pre-emptive unilateral action in respect of Iraq, would their action have the backing of the British Government?

Tony Blair: I should point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, although many people thought that the American Government would take a unilateral route, they actually chose to go through the United Nations. They are bound by the UN resolution, just as we are. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support me in saying that, if we are to use the UN route, and if there is a breach by Saddam, we should agree to take action. That surely must be right. At the very heart of the negotiations over the past few months has been the simple agreement that America and ourselves, and those who are enthusiastic about ensuring that we deal with the issue of weapons of mass destruction, are prepared to go down the UN route. The other side of that agreement, however, is that if Saddam breaches the UN resolution, people agree to take the action necessary to enforce the will of the UN.

Michael Foster: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the excellent work undertaken by the Worcester division of West Mercia police in tackling antisocial behaviour, but is he aware that magistrates fined one of my constituents who breached their order only #50? When a second constituent clearly breached an order, the Crown Prosecution Service failed to push the case. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those agencies have let the local police down? If he does, what is he going to do about it?

Tony Blair: It is interesting to reflect that the Magistrates Association has just agreed to bring forward new sentencing guidelines on breaches of antisocial behaviour orders. Following the discussions that the Home Secretary and I have been having with the CPS, I can assure my hon. Friend that it will attach much greater priority to ensuring that orders are enforced. Nation wide, about 44 per cent. of those prosecuted for breaching antisocial behaviour orders have received custodial sentences, so there are indications, at least in some parts of the country, that this is being treated with the seriousness that it deserves.
	I hope very much that the Bill on antisocial behaviour will give us the opportunity, as a House and as a Government, to send the clearest possible signal that antisocial behaviour order offences are a source of immense concern and worry to people, and that they need to be treated with utmost seriousness.

Malcolm Moss: Will the Prime Minister tell us why—despite all the promises, despite all the boasting about extra resources and despite the fact that we have had 12 criminal justice Acts in five years—only one crime in 40 ends up in a conviction?

Tony Blair: For years, of course, there has been a problem with getting those who have committed crimes to justice, but I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman that, for the past five years, crime is down, not up, under this Government. We now have record numbers of police officers. Indeed, his own area, Cambridgeshire, had record police numbers at the end of March 2002. There is still a long way to go, but surely the answer is to keep putting the money into the police service and not take it out, which is his party's intention.

Betty Williams: When my right hon. Friend considers the railways, will he discuss with ministerial colleagues the parts of the country that are remote from London and, in particular, the poor and, indeed, worsening service provided by Virgin Trains to north Wales, which, even at the best guess, will not improve until September 2004?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the difficulties of the Virgin west coast line. What I know she will understand, as she has talked about it with me, is that the Strategic Rail Authority's west coast strategy—the consultation on it closed on 16 December—includes a through service every two hours between London and Holyhead from 2004, which will run at 125 mph. I know that, as she rightly says, we have to wait some time for that to come online, but it is and it will be as a result of the extra investment going in.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Government promised to cut road congestion by 6 per cent. Has the Prime Minister kept that promise?

Tony Blair: Road usage is up by over 20 per cent., it is true.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister did not answer the question. He has broken his promise. According to all figures, congestion is worse, motorway congestion has doubled in the past four years and the Government have even abandoned their target, so he has broken another promise. What about the promise in 1997 to support and strengthen occupational pensions? Has he kept that promise?

Tony Blair: I believe that the measures announced in the pensions Green Paper yesterday will indeed help occupational pensions. I also believe that the introduction of stakeholder pensions—low-cost private pensions—will also improve the situation, but I may point out on transport that it is true that road usage is up by over 20 per cent. It is also true that rail usage is up by over 20 per cent. Indeed, so is tube usage. That is in part because the economy is immensely stronger.

Iain Duncan Smith: The answer is that the Prime Minister has broken his promise on that as well. Occupational pensions are a disaster. As a result of the Prime Minister's #25 billion tax, more than three quarters of occupational schemes have closed or are about to close.
	What about the Prime Minister's promise to cut school truancy by a third? Has he kept that promise?

Tony Blair: First, on pensions—[Hon. Members: XAh!"] I am sorry; the right hon. Gentleman made a remark about pensions, so I will deal with that first. These are the facts on pensions—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not shout across the Floor.

Tony Blair: The right hon. Gentleman said that we had broken the promise on pensions. Let me tell him what we have done for pensions. We have introduced the #200 winter allowance. We have introduced the larger-than-inflation rises in the basic state pension. We are introducing the pension credit next October. We have restored free eye tests—and, unlike the right hon. Gentleman's party, we have cut VAT on fuel, not put it up. That is what we have done for pensioners.
	The right hon. Gentleman is correct: truancy has remained roughly stable since we took office—that is absolutely true. However, there is one big difference. As a result of the measures that we are introducing, every child who is excluded from school will now get full-time education. When we took office, such children were getting only two hours of education a week.
	The point I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is this: whether it is transport or pensions or schools, we are in favour of putting investment in and he is in favour of taking it out.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister promised to cut school truancy, and he has broken that promise. More than 50,000 children play truant every day, and truancy in secondary schools has increased. Is it not the case that when the Prime Minister makes promises on schools, transport, pensions or, for that matter, crime, asylum, drugs or health, he is not juggling balls but talking them?

Tony Blair: Let us look at the record, shall we? Let us look at the record on schools, hospitals and crime. Under this Government we have the most jobs ever in the economy, the lowest mortgage rates for 40 years, record investment in education and health, the best school results that the country has ever seen, and the best-ever in-patient waiting-list figures since we came to office. Crime is down under this Government; it doubled under the right hon. Gentleman's.
	Whether it is schools, hospitals or dealing with crime, we are in favour of putting the investment in. The right hon. Gentleman is in favour of taking the money out.

Stephen Pound: I have recently been deriving enormous pleasure not just from the opinion polls but from my numerous lunches with pensioners' groups. There is, however, a susurrus of discontent among the pensioners of Northolt over a perceived threat to their bus passes. As they are disinclined to believe me when I assure them that there is no such threat from this Government, will the Prime Minister set the record straight?

Tony Blair: There is absolutely no way in which we would withdraw the concessions on bus passes for pensioners. I can make that absolutely clear. Once again, that is a measure that we introduced and the Conservative party opposed.

Adrian Sanders: The Prime Minister will be aware of the rapidly rising insurance premiums that are affecting businesses all over the country, especially tourism businesses that come into contact with the public, which cannot obtain public liability insurance or find that the premiums are rising fast. The Government say that they are organising an inquiry, but that there will be no report until March. Will they in the meantime consider acting as insurer of last resort, so that some of those businesses can obtain cover and stay open?

Tony Blair: An announcement was made in, I think, the pre-Budget report a few weeks ago, and it is correct to say that it will take until March for the inquiry to report. These are difficult issues, and the hon. Gentleman will know that the Office of Fair Trading is also looking at them, but I cannot give a commitment that the Government will act as an insurer of last resort. That would land the Government with a very large potential indemnity, which would not be a responsible thing to do.

Tom Harris: The whole House will have welcomed the Prime Minister's initiative in calling a middle east peace conference for next month in London. Will he make it clear to Palestinian delegates that although the Government support the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian state, every suicide bomb attack against innocent Israeli civilians puts such a prospect ever further out of reach?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Of course, the purpose of suicide bombings and the killing of innocent Israeli citizens is to provoke such hatred and division between Israelis and Palestinians that they cannot reach an agreement whereby the two states live side by side. In exactly the same way, the so-called dissident republicans and so-called loyalists who are engaged in terrorist activity in Northern Ireland seek to disrupt the process of peace. That is the purpose of the people who engage in these appalling suicide missions, and he is absolutely right in saying that they are the enemies of a lasting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Andrew Rosindell: Will the Prime Minister explain to my constituents in Romford—he will recall that Romford was a Conservative gain at the last general election—why, under the new local government formula, Sedgefield is being given an 8.9 per cent. increase, yet we in the London borough of Havering are receiving only 3.5 per cent.? Are not the people of my borough being short-changed by this Labour Government?

Tony Blair: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of how much money we are putting into local government services, particularly since, as he says, Romford was one of the few gains that the Conservatives made at the last election. The fact is that, under this Government, we are putting far more money into local government and into services such as education, health and the police. As a result of the additional sums going into Romford and elsewhere, in the past few years local government support has risen by more than 20 per cent. in real terms, yet in the five years before we took office it was actually cut. So the message to his constituents is to reverse the slight misjudgment that they made at the last election.

Eddie McGrady: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is no doubt fully briefed on the current negotiations in Brussels on the fishing industry. Is he aware that the proposal for an 80 per cent. cut in fishing effort and for seven days per month spent at sea will totally devastate the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency? Will he use his governmental influence to ensure that no such agreement is reached, and that a reasonable effort is made to provide a regime that can sustain the industry on the sea and onshore?

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman is of course entirely right to raise this concern. He will know—it is always important to repeat the point—that there is a real issue in respect of fishing stocks. Cod stocks have fallen from about 250,000 tonnes to some 35,000 tonnes in the past few years. He will know from what I said the other day in this House that I consider an 80 per cent. cut entirely unacceptable. It would devastate the industry, and we are working flat out in Brussels and elsewhere, and at every level that we can, to try to ensure that that decision is not implemented.

Andrew Selous: With a possible war looming in Iraq, many of our loyal constituents want a clearer explanation of the British involvement. Is that involvement intended to protect Iraq's citizens and neighbours from Saddam, to enhance UN authority, or to protect Britain from a future missile attack and Iraqi-sponsored terrorism?

Tony Blair: I never quite know where the Conservative party is coming from nowadays. Those factors are not all mutually inconsistent. The reasons for being prepared to take action in respect of Saddam are, first, that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction that threaten his region. As I said a few months ago, they not only threaten his region; frankly, if a conflict took place there involving weapons of mass destruction, it is unthinkable that we would not be involved in it in some way, as we were 10 years ago.
	Secondly, it is important because there is a UN resolution. We have laid down the clear will of the international community, which is that Saddam must give up those weapons. There are real issues concerning weapons of mass destruction and if, at this moment in time, we were to allow Saddam to breach the UN will and did nothing about it, the consequences would be felt not just in respect of Iraq. We would send a message across the world that this was a serious issue, but one about which we were prepared to do nothing. [Interruption.] Conservative Members shout, XWhat has it got to do with us?" [Hon. Members: XNo!"] They were, as a matter of fact. We are members of the international community and we believe that it is important that Britain make sure that Saddam complies with those UN resolutions. That is why Britain has a vital national interest in ensuring that the resolution is implemented.

Jim Dobbin: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that, today, the UK came bottom of an international league table of 17 countries in terms of the provision of recombinant for haemophilia sufferers? When will the Government provide recombinant for those sufferers in England and Northern Ireland?

Tony Blair: We are trying to support this work through research and by considering the case for extending the provision of recombinant to all other haemophilia patients. As my hon. Friend knows, certain of them already get it. It is important that we examine the case for extending it and we are looking at that case at the moment.

Terrorism

Julian Lewis: What his latest estimate is of the risk of terrorist attack by al-Qaeda against the United Kingdom.

Tony Blair: As I made clear a few weeks ago, barely a day goes by without some new piece of intelligence coming via our security and intelligence services about a threat to UK interests. Although we have had some significant success in damaging al-Qaeda's capabilities since 11 September and have thwarted a number of attacks, the terrorist threat against the UK and UK interests remains real and serious.

Julian Lewis: Have not the attacks in Bali and Mombasa shown that al-Qaeda specialises in multiple, simultaneous attacks? Given that al-Qaeda cells are believed to be in place in Britain, was not it unwise of the Home Office to withdraw last month the serious warning that it rightly gave of the sort of attacks that we could expect here in the UK? Was not it a mistake to think that it was wrong to spell out the threats in detail because the British people might panic? The British people need to be warned of what they might expect, and I do not think that they will panic if they are told the truth.

Tony Blair: Of course it is important that people be told, but it is also important that we make a balanced assessment of how much information we give and what we say along with it. It is not just a question of the information; it is the judgment we make as to the weight that can be attached to it. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, a few weeks ago, there were stories in the newspapers about a possible poison attack on the tube. There was no specific evidence of such an attack, yet the information ended up causing, I think, unnecessary concern among people. It is a difficult balance to strike and we do our level best to get the balance right. However, it is important to realise that intelligence and information comes to us the whole time. If we published all of it, we would cause unnecessary alarm, so we must sift it and make a judgment. I believe that the judgments that we have made so far have been right and the circumstances in which that information was withdrawn were explained at the time.

Jim Knight: This week, Dorset police warned Christmas shoppers to be vigilant about terrorist attacks. Does my right hon. Friend share Dorset police's concern? What action has he taken to reassure constituents such as mine in Dorset about terrorist attacks?

Tony Blair: It is important that people be vigilant, and this country has long experience of dealing with a possible terrorist threat from the IRA. However, it is important that we recognise that the terrorist threat could take many different forms. Although we are spending considerable sums on doing all that we can to protect ourselves against a threat, it is also important that we realise that there is a limit to what we can do.

Engagements

Tim Boswell: Is the Prime Minister persisting in his policy of 50 per cent. participation in higher education by people between the ages of 18 and 30 before the year 2010?

Tony Blair: Yes, we want to make sure that we get as many people into university as possible. We have set a target of 50 per cent., but I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education that that should be open only to people who pass the requisite standard. At the moment, 43 per cent. of the relevant age group go to university. Extending that to 50 per cent. will mean that there will be about 250,000 extra students a year. In the past four years, for example, we have had very nearly 100,000 extra students, so the target is not impossible. However, reaching it must not involve a drop in standards.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the two biggest problems in Burnley are the 4,500 empty houses and the fact that our main core budget is less, in real spending terms, than it was 11 years ago. The forthcoming housing renewal pathfinder project and new financial arrangements will help the area tremendously. However, will my right hon. Friend assure the people of Burnley that next year's transitional and bridging arrangements will enable Burnley borough council to tackle the two important problems that I outlined?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is of great concern to people in his area and in other parts of the north-west where houses are lying empty or are falling in value. He will probably know that there is due to be a community statement at the end of January, which will set out the pathfinder initiatives to deal with the problem. The overall investment that the Government will put into housing over the next few years will mean that hundreds of millions of pounds more will be available. I hope that that extra money will play some part in enabling affected communities to rebuild themselves. Again, of course, that is all part of the investment that the Government are committed to putting in, and which the Opposition are committed to taking out.

Iraq

Geoff Hoon: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on contingency preparations for possible military action against Iraq.
	My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and I, have set out the Government's approach to Iraq on a number of occasions. That approach has not changed in any way. We are committed to the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's regime by ensuring its compliance with United Nations Security Council resolution 1441. Our primary objective is to achieve this by peaceful means. Saddam Hussein is being given every opportunity to disarm voluntarily.
	We hope that he will take this opportunity to do so but, given his previous record, it would be foolish to assume that he will comply unless he faces clear and overwhelming pressure. That is why we must continue to present a credible threat of force.
	When the House debated this issue on 25 November, and when it discussed it again at Defence questions on 9 December, I made it clear that we would continue with the prudent preparations and planning necessary for military action, should it be required. I said that we would continue to take appropriate steps to ensure that British forces were ready and had the training, equipment and support that they needed. What we are doing is ensuring that we have a range of military options available, should they be required. The House may, however, find it helpful if I set out again the work that we have put in hand.
	As I told the House on 25 November, we have also been taking action to provide additional capabilities that may potentially be needed, either by bringing forward programmes which were already planned or by making new procurements against short time scales. As the House will recall, these measures include bringing forward the purchase of further temporary deployable accommodation, upgrading the infrastructure available in deployed field hospitals, improving battlefield ambulances, and enhancing the ability of our forces to handle and exploit secure communications. We are approaching the shipping market this week, to charter vessels that might be needed to move equipment and personnel. We are also acting on the lessons learned from Exercise Saif Sareea 2, particularly in relation to the Challenger 2 tank, the AS 90 artillery system, and desert clothing and boots. I can assure the House that we are working closely with industry to ensure that British forces will have the capabilities they need for the contingencies that they may face.
	As I previously indicated to the House, we are also continuing to consider the number and mix of reservists who might be required in the event of military action and to ensure that the machinery and processes involved in mobilising reserves are ready to be used if and when the time comes. Relevant units and individual reservists will be informed of the possibility of being included in a call-out, should that become necessary. We will take steps to identify individuals who may have genuine reasons for not being available in the months ahead. Information will also be made available to reservists for their employers.
	More generally, I have authorised a range of steps to improve readiness. This includes training, ensuring that the right quantities of equipment are available to those who may need them, as well as the procurement of stocks and spares. For some units it will involve a reduction in their notice to move. This does not mean that they are about to be deployed but that they will be ready to deploy at relatively short notice if required. I emphasise that the involvement of any particular unit in these processes does not mean that it will necessarily take part in any military action that may be required. The purpose of these preparations is to provide the necessary range of options, not a specific plan.
	We have already announced the long-planned deployment of the naval task group 2003 in the new year, with scheduled visits and exercises in the Gulf and the Asia-Pacific regions from February to August. This is a routine deployment that happens approximately every three years but, like all maritime deployments, it remains available for a range of potential operations if required. The group will be led by HMS Ark Royal and will include the Type 23 frigate HMS Marlborough, the Type 42 destroyer HMS Liverpool and support from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels Fort Victoria and Orangeleaf. A nuclear-powered submarine will also be assigned to the group for part of its deployment. In addition, a mine countermeasures group, comprising HMS Ramsey, HMS Grimsby, HMS Shoreham, HMS Ledbury and RFA Sir Bedivere will deploy ahead of the task group to undertake a series of exercises and port visits in the Gulf region.
	Further to those routine deployments, we are also considering the deployment of additional maritime forces early in the new year to ensure the readiness of a broad range of maritime capabilities, should they be required.
	Finally, I emphasise once more that these are contingency preparations, aimed at increasing the readiness of a range of options. This process does not lead inexorably to military action. The use of force is not inevitable. However, as long as Saddam's compliance with UNSCR 1441 is in doubt, the threat of force must remain and must be real.

Gerald Howarth: As the Secretary of State is aware, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, is in the Gulf visiting British servicemen and women who are already there in some force.
	I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Indeed, we are grateful to him for responding to the call yesterday from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) to make a statement today, the last major parliamentary day before Christmas. However, it is an indictment of the Government's priorities that the media were briefed yesterday and the House of Commons was briefed today. We are clearly the poor relations.
	Furthermore, at the now famous press conference held last month by the Secretary of State and the Chief of the Defence Staff, the right hon. Gentleman undertook to brief Parliament during our debate on 25 November. He failed to do so, imperiously confining himself to a reference to Xprudent preparations and planning". Today's mantra, adding to that, seems to be the mere maintenance of a range of options.
	It is some time since the Government reported that the United States had submitted a formal request for UK military support. We recognise that operational security may limit the information that the right hon. Gentleman can give the House, so we shall not seek confirmation of every detail published in today's newspapers. However, the House and the country are entitled to know what level of military commitment the Government have in mind. It is frankly bizarre that our television screens are full of US troop manoeuvres in the Gulf while the Government have so far said virtually nothing about possible British involvement.
	Today's bland statement adds very little to what we know. From reading today's newspapers, it seems that the media know more about the detail than the Secretary of State is prepared to share with the House, so let me put some questions to him. What specific capability has the United States requested, and what is the Government's response? What are the options that he referred to in his statement? Can he assure the House that, bearing in mind reports of shortages, there will be sufficient spares and logistical support to sustain a campaign lasting more than a few days? Has the equipment been desertised and will units trained on Exercise Saif Sareea be deployed and not held back for firefighting duties?
	Given the consequences for both reservists and employers, surely the Government could be more specific about their call-up plans. Does the Secretary of State have in mind the call-up of formed units, apart from the medical services? What medication will be prescribed to any British contingent and will it be different from that prescribed during the Gulf war, or take into account United States developments in that respect?
	Is it not the case that the likely resumption of the firemen's strike will have a damaging limitation on the Secretary of State's ability to deploy troops whose training is up to speed, thus confirming that he is unprepared for the unexpected? Does he accept that publicly preparing British forces for deployment will help to bring pressure to bear on Iraq to comply with UN Security Council resolution 1441, and that being more forthcoming would assist the House and the securing of that objective?
	The statement was thinner than I had expected and than the House was entitled to have heard. I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that, if there are to be deployments during the Christmas recess, the House will be advised.
	Finally, as we approach Christmas, I hope that in a spirit of good will and cross-party solidarity the Secretary of State will join me in paying tribute to our armed forces and their families as they stand ready to embark on operations should the need arise.

Geoff Hoon: May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that there was nothing in the briefing to journalists yesterday that had not previously been set out clearly to the House of Commons on two, if not three, occasions? Each of the points that he made—for example, on desertisation, the impact of a possible fire strike or reservists—has been dealt with in some detail already. Although hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench are shaking their heads, I invite them to look carefully at reports both of previous debates and of the most recent Defence questions where all those matters were dealt with. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has come to the House with such a long list of requests—if he had carefully read the pages of Hansard, all his questions would have been answered.

Paul Keetch: We on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and I thank him for providing an advance copy. It is right that he brought that information to the House so that we could consider it; no Government can afford to leave themselves unprepared for military action.
	This Christmas, many members of our armed forces and their families will be acutely aware of the possibility that they could be involved in future military action, so I am sure that they would like reassurance from the Secretary of State both about the readiness of the armed forces and about the decision-making process that might precede action.
	I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comment that the lessons of Saif Sareea 2 have been learned, but can he confirm that the MOD did not decline an offer from Vickers to modify the tanks earlier this year? If he has changed his mind, how much will that cost the taxpayer?
	What is the availability of our aircraft carriers for action and will our Sea Harriers be able to operate in that climate? Can the Secretary of State make a commitment that any troops sent to the Gulf will have the modified SA80 assault rifle?
	Are the necessary medical provisions in place? What provision has been made for the purchase of nuclear, biological and chemical suits and filters? What steps have the Government taken to prevent a repeat of the medical problems experienced after the Gulf war? If troops are sent to the region will the Defence Medical Services have the capability to provide enough field hospitals?
	The Secretary of State is right to say that war is not inevitable, but Liberal Democrat Members speak for many people in the House and beyond when we say that military action should be conducted only with the authority of the UN and after a substantive vote in the House. We must not fall into the problems experienced by Europe before the first world war; preparations are necessary but they must not make war inevitable. We must not fall into that trap.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations and I shall try to deal with each of his points in turn.
	Certainly, the Government have learned lessons both from previous exercises and from previous deployments. As I pointed out a few moments ago, I referred on a previous occasion to specific examples in respect of Saif Sareea 2, which was a valuable training exercise and a number of significant lessons were learned—not least about the use of Challenger 2 tanks and the need for desertisation.
	As for the SA80, again, we have learned the lessons thrown up by the deployment in Afghanistan, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the modified assault rifle will be available to our forces in the event of there being a need for military action.
	On the medical issues, some of which I have mentioned already today, as I did on a previous occasion, I can also assure him and the House that our forces will be effectively and properly equipped against the risk of exposure to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. I think that I have already dealt with the point about field hospitals. Certainly, a great deal of effort has been made to learn and understand the lessons from the Gulf war in the early 1990s, and they will be applied in the event of any subsequent operations in similar conditions.

Ann Clwyd: Whatever happens in the next few months—no one quite knows what—I spent this weekend at the Iraqi opposition groups' meeting in London and, as far as I could see, apart from a junior Foreign Office official, there was no British involvement at all, although there was a delegation of 50 Americans present. All those in the Iraqi opposition have always said that they want greater British involvement. Whatever the future of that country, Iraq should be democratic, and we should be involved in those talks from the very first day, so will my right hon. Friend please consider those suggestions and act on them?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments and for her typically constructive approach to such matters. For many years, she has been a champion of the need to observe human rights in Iraq and, indeed, she has not shrunk from the difficult decisions that follow from that. I assure her that the Foreign Office monitored the conference closely during the weekend, but that conference was clearly a matter for the Iraqi opposition groups themselves.
	While not attempting to foresee the consequences of military action if it is ultimately required in a place such as Iraq, I believe that we have an important model in what has taken place in Afghanistan. In the months since military action was necessary there, we have seen a determined effort—not without difficulty; in no way do I underestimate the problems that have been faced—by the international community, by people in Afghanistan and, significantly, by many people returning from exile abroad to Afghanistan to help in the considerable task of rebuilding their country. I have every expectation that the same determined effort will be made by the international community and, indeed, Iraqi exiles in rebuilding their own country.

John Stanley: Following the exchange in the House earlier today on the possibility of a future debate on military intervention in Iraq on a substantive motion in the House, will the Secretary of State for Defence assure the House that the Government's overriding consideration on the timing of any such debate will be the protection of the lives of British servicemen and women?

Geoff Hoon: I can give that assurance. I was asked that question this morning, and I gave that assurance then. I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said on precisely that issue: it is obviously crucial that the safety and security of our forces should be uppermost in any decision, and I know that all hon. Members would agree with that.

Gerald Kaufman: While neither President Bush nor anyone else must pre-empt the implementation of Security Council resolution 1441, does my right hon. Friend agree that that resolution must be implemented, that paragraph 13 says that Iraq will face serious consequences if it is not implemented and that it would be irresponsible of Her Majesty's Government not to make contingency preparations in case that way of implementing it is necessary? Does he agree that whether resolution 1441 is implemented by force depends on Saddam Hussein?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend sets out the position with his customary clarity. I do not need to add anything to his words except to agree that it is vital that we make it clear to Saddam Hussein that the choice is his. He has been given the opportunity of disarming, and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, that is a choice for him.

Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that while there may be substantial agreement between those on the Front Benches, that should not mask the fact that a great deal of anxiety exists in this House and elsewhere about the policy towards Iraq? Does he not understand that while a Security Council resolution may make a policy of war legal, it does not make it wise or moral? Furthermore, does he not understand that in the absence of a grave and imminent threat to ourselves and our allies, many of us believe that war is wrong, by which I mean not morally justified, as well as politically profoundly unwise?

Geoff Hoon: I was not sure from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations whether he was making a general or a specific observation about the nature of war. I have heard him make observations in the past, and, curiously, they were never critical of his Government when he was a Minister. He has never made previously the kinds of comments that he has made lately about the responsibilities of the House or of the Government to Parliament. I assume that he has made a recent conversion to those views. He is perfectly entitled to those views, but I happen to disagree with them.

Tony Worthington: This will be the first war that will be fought when the International Criminal Court is in operation. Our forces will be subject to it, and I hope that Saddam Hussein will appear before it. Why are the Government negotiating a bilateral agreement with the American Government to help exclude American forces from the provisions of the International Criminal Court?

Geoff Hoon: The answer to that is straightforward: the present United States Administration have not accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC for their armed forces. To ensure a consistency of approach, the Government, together with many other Governments around the world, have agreed that bilateral approach with the United States.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Secretary of State goes out of his way to say that the deployment is routine. Is it routine to deploy minesweepers ahead of the task group? Does he not consider that the UK is now on a treadmill to war, and that, in fact, the decision to commit will not be made by No. 10 but by somebody else across the sea who has already decided that war is inevitable?

Geoff Hoon: I repeat again that this is a routine deployment and a long-planned exercise, which has taken place on a regular basis. On the hon. Gentleman's specific question about minesweepers, it would hardly be sensible to allow this deployment to take place in one of the most dangerous stretches of water anywhere in the world without there being appropriate protection in place, in the form of minesweepers, to ensure that British forces are not at unnecessary risk. I reject absolutely what he says about any decision to commit; that decision will be taken by a British Prime Minister, as has always been the case.

Tam Dalyell: I have been invited to give a Zayed foundation lecture in Abu Dhabi on Saturday, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) knows, those are serious occasions. After discussions with the leadership in the Emirates, they were absolutely appalled and horrified at the consequences of an American-British attack on Iraq. What value do the Government attach to the opinion of old and trusted friends of this country?

Geoff Hoon: The United Kingdom Government attach very great value to their friends and allies around the world, and not least in the Gulf region, to which I have been a regulator visitor over many years. I recognise the importance of maintaining an international coalition on these matters, which is reflected in a unanimous vote by the Security Council—including, perhaps to the surprise of many right hon. and hon. Members, the vote of Syria—in favour of resolution 1441. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Government set great store by the views of the international community, and we will continue to seek out those views and to seek to have them in agreement with whatever decisions are taken in due course.

Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State will recall that, following the strategic defence review, the Chief of the General Staff said that the most important development of the SDR for the Army was the development of the formation training cycle, which was designed to prepare formations to make deployments precisely such as this. How robust has the formation training cycle proved under the combination of having to deal with the firefighters' strike, all the other active service deployments and this particular deployment?

Geoff Hoon: I agree with the implication of the hon. Gentleman's observation to the extent that it has not been possible to follow precisely the formation training cycle as laid down in the SDR, not least because of the series of events that the United Kingdom has felt it right to respond to. I do not like challenging him with a further question, but, before he asks a similar question, he needs to think through what would have been the response of Opposition Members if we had stuck rigidly to the formation training cycle and not involved ourselves in a series of important international operations, such as those in Afghanistan and in the Balkans. It is for those reasons that it has not been possible to follow precisely the terms of the formation training cycle.

Alice Mahon: I have listened to the statement and to the answers that the Prime Minister gave earlier on Iraq, and it seems to some of us that it is absolutely clear that we will support the Bush war on Iraq regardless of the United Nations. Given that, we are entitled to know exactly what the cost of preparing for this illegal, immoral and unnecessary war will be. What contingencies have been made for the thousands of refugees who will undoubtedly seek asylum in our country and in the west in general if the whole area is destabilised?

Geoff Hoon: I can only repeat the assurance that my right hon. Friends and I have given on previous occasions. There is no inevitability about a war. It is a matter of upholding United Nations resolutions and the approach that the UN has taken. Again, I simply invite my hon. Friend to consider how it is otherwise possible to uphold the will of the international community—I am sure that is something that she and I agree upon—unless we are prepared to use force to back up the decisions that the UN has taken.

Hugh Robertson: As someone who was personally involved in the last deployment 12 years ago, I wholeheartedly support the Secretary of State's desire to give servicemen and women and their families the maximum possible notice of any deployment. However, one of the options being studied is presumably the deployment of a full armoured division. How long does he calculate that it would take to deploy such a division to the Gulf? Once it is there, how long does he calculate that it would take to bring it ready for operations?

Geoff Hoon: From the hon. Gentleman's considerable previous experience, he knows full well that it would not be sensible for me to answer either of those questions.

David Winnick: Is it not the case that, this time about 12 years ago, the criminal dictator had time to leave Kuwait and his refusal to do so led to the Gulf war? Now, his refusal to give up weapons of mass destruction might lead to military action. Why do not the critics, including the former Tory Minister who was so enthusiastic about the Gulf war at the time, give the responsibility for war, should it come, not to the allies, the United States, Britain and the international community, but to the criminal regime because it refuses to comply with the UN resolution?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend puts his case with his customary passion—more passion than I am perhaps able to display. We have always made it clear that Saddam Hussein is a unique case, having not only invaded two neighbours but having used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. That is why the overwhelming view of the international community is that it is necessary that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq should be disarmed.

Jenny Tonge: Remembering the experience of prisoners of war after the war in Afghanistan, will the Secretary of State tell us what plans he has to deal with Iraqi prisoners of war in the event of an attack?

Geoff Hoon: They will be dealt with in accordance with humanitarian and international law.

Donald Anderson: The terms of the charter of vessels will surely be known in the markets fairly soon, if not now. What can my right hon. Friend tell the House about the earliest start date for those charters and the length of them? Which NATO allies, apart from the US, are also involving themselves in prudent planning?

Geoff Hoon: Again, for reasons that I have set out, I cannot give the House precise details of either the start date of any charters or their length. All I can say is that we are involved in contingency preparations to ensure that vessels are available should their use be required. No decisions have yet been taken on their use. As far as other countries are concerned, I am sure that all responsible members of the Security Council and the UN will want to take appropriate action to ensure the enforcement of Security Council resolution 1441.

Patrick Mercer: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Armoured Brigade—the teeth, the arms, the punching machine of the force—that was so carefully, expensively and contentiously trained in Saif Sareea will be used for desert warfare in Iraq?

Geoff Hoon: I am not going to give any indication of the nature of the force package that will be available. If the hon. Gentleman looks again at the words that I used in the statement, he will see that I said that a range of military options will be available to the commanders of UK forces. It would not be sensible for me to dwell on any particular aspect of those forces, as he knows full well.

Mike Gapes: The Secretary of State will know that Saddam Hussein's regime used Scud missiles in 1991 and that previously it used chemical weapons against its neighbour and its own people. What assurance can he give that, if our forces have to be deployed, they will be adequately protected against such attacks? In that context, is there effective interoperability with our NATO allies and other partners in the coalition if there is a material breach and military action becomes necessary?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. I said that British forces would be properly protected in the event of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack against them. On interoperability, one of the most recent decisions is to ensure effective communications between different forces. One of the clear lessons from the operation in Afghanistan, especially the deployment of the international security assistance force, is that NATO standard forces can work together quickly given their common training and common approach to equipment. We need to build on that recent success.

Mark Prisk: Given recent tragic incidents of friendly fire in different theatres of war, can the Secretary of State assure the House, and indeed the country, that all our service personnel deployed in theatre will have the equipment they need to communicate speedily and effectively with friendly units?

Geoff Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising a serious and important point. I assure him that efforts are being made to ensure that that is the case.

Peter Kilfoyle: Recalling A. J. P. Taylor's theory on mobilisation, is not there a certain inevitability about military action given the Americans' stated intention of regime change in Iraq? Will the charters be British ships manned by British crews?

Geoff Hoon: As far as inevitability is concerned, the final observation in my statement was that military action is not inevitable. Equally, however, if we did not make prudent preparations, it would be inevitable that we could not take military action should the circumstances warrant it. I simply invite my hon. Friend to consider that. If he believes, as I am sure he does, in the need to enforce UN resolutions, he must also believe that it is necessary to take military action in certain circumstances to uphold those decisions. As for chartering ships, it is important that the UK has available to it a secure and reliable system of being able to transport both its people and its equipment.

Richard Younger-Ross: I want to press the Secretary of State on humanitarian aid. Considering the disaster that occurred in Kurdistan after the Gulf war, what contingency plans has he made for humanitarian aid, and what calculations has the Ministry of Defence made for best case and worst case collateral damage?

Geoff Hoon: I shall not go into a great deal of detail at this stage about the range of possible consequences of military action that has yet to be decided on. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, not least because of our experience in Afghanistan, where a huge amount of humanitarian aid was promptly made available after military operations, that the matter will be high on our list of priorities.

Glenda Jackson: If war is inevitable only if Iraq fails to comply with Security Council resolution 1441, will all members of the Security Council be furnished with the American analysis of the Iraqi document? Given the somewhat intemperate statements of Secretary Powell, who rushed to judgment on the document's veracity, will such an analysis be verified by the UN inspectors before any decision is made by the Security Council, or is the will of the international community reduced to that of the United States?

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept that for a moment. If my hon. Friend looks carefully later at the question that she just asked me, she will realise that the answer is a matter for the United States. I emphasise to her and other hon. Members that the United States and, quite separately, the United Kingdom will be making their own assessment of the material, as, I anticipate, will other members of the Security Council. There have been certain adjustments in the material made available for perfectly understandable reasons, because it is necessary to ensure that nothing that is communicated to members of the UN should assist in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Other than that, it will be open to members of the Security Council to make their own assessment.

Gary Streeter: In supporting the steps being taken by the Secretary of State, I ask him to give the House an assurance that, before he deploys Challenger 2 tanks to the Gulf, he will deal not only with their desertisation but with the technical deficiencies that came to light in recent exercises in Canada. Will he make sure that, in the coming combat, if that occurs, our troops have high-quality equipment that is not likely to break down as they are charging towards Baghdad?

Geoff Hoon: Of course, Challenger 2 tanks regularly exercise in Canada, so it is important to recognise that our information about the performance of the equipment is regularly updated. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that every effort will be made to incorporate all the lessons learned from previous exercises and deployments.

Dennis Skinner: Are the Government aware that outside this place there is probably a majority of the British people who are against a war on Iraq? That was not true of the Falklands, Kosovo or Afghanistan, and it must worry Ministers as it worries those of us on the Back Benches. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many electors say that this is about a vain American President wanting to complete the job that his father did not do 12 years ago? They also think that it is about oil. I say to my right hon. Friend and the Government that vanity is not sufficient reason to spill the blood of innocent men, women and children, either here or in Iraq.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend and I are parliamentary neighbours; we live in the same county and therefore come across the same sorts of people. I do not find that people are saying quite what he says. I recognise that there is concern and that there should be concern. There is concern in the House and on this Front Bench about any decision to deploy British forces in a war.
	I simply do not accept, however, that the British people believe any of the criticisms that my hon. Friend makes of the United States or its President. They are looking for UN Security Council resolutions to be upheld, ensuring that Saddam Hussein and his regime cannot threaten the stability of the region or indeed the safety and security of British people, whether they are British troops deployed in Cyprus or people here in the United Kingdom.

Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that over 40 per cent. of Iraqis are children under 16? When an attack takes place on Iraq, what action will be taken to ensure that there is not collateral mayhem involving children and innocent people?

Geoff Hoon: An enormous effort is made during the course of any kind of military operation, including bombing operations, to ensure that the targets addressed do not cause unnecessary risk to a civilian population. That was the case during operations over Afghanistan for which I was responsible, when I personally ensured that harm to the civilian population was minimised. I can tell my hon. Friend that even in the relatively short time since the last Gulf war, there have been enormous improvements in the accuracy and sophistication of the equipment used to allow those responsible for any military action to ensure that the threat to civilian populations is minimised.

Hugh Bayley: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people in Britain hope desperately that we will not go to war with Iraq but nevertheless think that it is wise and prudent to make preparations for war because they know that it is inconceivable that Saddam Hussein will comply and disarm without the threat of military action if he fails to do so?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Can I make it clear that I am one of those who hope that we will not go to war? I hope that Saddam Hussein will accept his responsibilities and enforce the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolution. Equally, however, like my hon. Friend, I believe that it is much more likely that Saddam Hussein will accept Security Council resolution 1441 if it is backed up by the threat of the use of force.

Doug Henderson: Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about Abu Dhabi, why cannot the Government understand that, having committed themselves to the United Nations process, if they then remove themselves from it and take unilateral or bilateral action, they will alienate moderate Islamic opinion throughout the world? Does he recognise that, if that happens, he will create a hell for us and our children for many generations to come?

Geoff Hoon: But the Government do understand that. The point was made directly to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's questions only a few minutes ago, and he addressed the issue directly. It is clearly understood, recognised and acted upon by the Government.

Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Secretary of State not just made a statement that softens us up for a war? He has no intention of going back to the United Nations or seeking parliamentary approval, and is moving troops into the region to start a war the moment that George Bush says so. Can he deny that carte blanche has been given to George Bush to do what he will, and that the British Government will support him?

Geoff Hoon: I can only reiterate to my hon. Friend all the points that I have made repeatedly in response to each of those questions. I am sorry that he does not appear to accept the answers that I have already given, but I can assure him that it will be for a British Prime Minister acting in the best interests of the United Kingdom to decide whether or not British troops are deployed in the event of a decision to use military force.

Malcolm Savidge: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while, as he said, the threat of military action is a major incentive for Saddam to comply with UN resolution 1441, if he forms the impression that war is probable or inevitable, that will be a strong disincentive to disarm? If we sincerely wish to avoid war, surely it is essential that we and our US allies keep a careful balance in the belligerence of our stance?

Geoff Hoon: That is absolutely right. It is important to make it clear that we want a peaceful resolution of the situation—we want Saddam Hussein to accept the opportunity that he has been given to agree to the will of the United Nations and the international community. Equally, however, it follows that he is much more likely to do so if we maintain a credible threat of force.

Alan Simpson: Despite the shopping list of military resources in the Secretary of State's statement, is not the reality that the British Government have already decided to support a US war on Iraq and, in fact, are already doing so? Given the 300 per cent. increase in US and British raids on the no-fly zone, perhaps he will tell the House how many bombing days he has left before Christmas. Will he also acknowledge that the evidence of Turkish troops using those raids to go in and kill Kurds raises the question of who exactly is being protected in this hidden war against Iraq, long before the formal slaughter begins?

Geoff Hoon: Again, instead of using language like US and UK raids on Iraq, it is important that my hon. Friend thinks about the many men and women based in the east midlands, an area that he and I are both proud to represent, who are risking their lives over the skies of Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Is he telling the House that he believes that those men and women should not be entitled to defend themselves when they come under regular attack from the forces of Saddam Hussein? I am sure that my hon. Friend is not saying that, in which case their actions are entirely justified in international law.

Llew Smith: The Secretary of State outlined some of the preparations for a war with Iraq, including, frighteningly, the use of nuclear-powered submarines. Can he tell me whether similar preparations are being made for a war with Israel, which is also breaking UN resolutions, is invading Palestine daily, has weapons of mass destruction, and has a Head of State who is a state terrorist?

Geoff Hoon: I must tell my hon. Friend that all British submarines are nuclear powered. The comparison between Iraq and Israel does not stand up. The position in relation to Iraq is quite unique. It is a country that has invaded two of its neighbours and used weapons of mass destruction against its own people. That is in no way comparable with Israel, nor are the resolutions that my hon. Friend cites in any way comparable. The resolutions that mention Israel also mention a number of other countries that have equal obligations under UN Security Council resolutions. The comparison is not helpful. If my hon. Friend looked more carefully at those resolutions, he would not ask such a question.

Harry Cohen: Are UK forces taking cluster bombs to the region? Are US forces taking them? Have US forces taken their giant, indiscriminate daisy-cutter bombs there? Are not the preparations really civilian-killing preparations?

Geoff Hoon: Again, I have resisted the temptation that hon. Members and hon. Friends have given me this afternoon to refer to any specific equipment that might or might not be used. Appropriate respect will be given to the requirements of international law in any action that is taken and proves necessary in Iraq.

Scottish Parliament

Helen Liddell: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the future size of the Scottish Parliament.
	In the White Paper, XScotland's Parliament" published in July 1997, the Government acknowledged that the special statutory provisions that stipulated a minimum number of Scottish seats in this House would no longer apply. The average Scottish constituency represented here comprises around 55,000 electors, whereas the average for English constituencies is around 70,000. One factor in this increased representation had been the need to recognise the additional requirement for Scottish MPs to scrutinise separate legislation unique to the Scottish system.
	The Scotland Act 1998 provides that any reduction in the number of MPs representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster will cause a reduction in the number of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. The boundary commission for Scotland published in March this year provisional recommendations that would lead to a reduction in the current number of Scottish Westminster constituencies from 72 to 59. The consequence for Holyrood would be a fall in the number of MSPs from 129 to around 104. During the passage of the Scotland Act, the Government made it clear that if the Parliament took the view that its workings would be undermined by a reduction in numbers, representations could be made to the Government of the day to amend that section of the Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), then Secretary of State for Scotland, reiterated that view in September 2000. I have made similar public statements to that effect.
	Honouring that commitment, I launched last year a consultation to seek views on retaining or adjusting the current statutory link between Westminster and Holyrood parliamentary constituencies. In particular, the consultation paper sought views on three issues: the consequence of the reduction required by the Scotland Act for the operation of the Scottish Parliament; the practical effect and issues that might arise between MPs, MSPs and councillors if boundaries were not coterminous for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies; and the implications of non-coterminous boundaries for electoral administrators and local authorities in relation to the registration of voters and conduct of elections and for the structure and operation of political parties. Almost 800 copies of the consultation document were issued, and the Scotland Office website page recorded 1,300 hits. More than 230 replies were received from civic bodies, individuals, electoral administrators, councils, the Scottish Executive, MPs, MSPs and political parties.
	The purpose of the consultation was to seek to proceed on the basis of the sort of consensus born out of the Scottish Constitutional Convention's scheme for the Scottish Parliament. That broad-based convention was made up of political parties including the Scottish Labour party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats, as well as trade unions, local authorities, Churches, the voluntary sector, business groups and civic Scotland. I made it clear that if the Government were ever to consider amending the Scotland Act, any proposal should seek the same sort of consensus as that which emerged through the convention.
	Two strands emerge from the consultation. First, there is the need for stability. Among the civic and representative bodies that responded, the overwhelming view was that the Scottish Parliament should continue to operate with the present number of MSPs. The argument was put that a reduction would cause difficulties, especially to the Committee system, and that it would be unwise to destabilise the Parliament so early in its life by reducing its numbers. The respondents stated that a reduction would adversely affect the Parliament's scrutiny of legislation and the Executive's capacity to conduct inquiries or initiate legislation. They claimed that any reduction in the numbers of list MSPs would reduce proportionality and that the current structure should be maintained to give a proper balance of representation.
	Secondly, it was acknowledged, not least by electoral administrators, that difficulties could arise if the boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood were not coterminous. Confusion could be caused to voters and there would be problems for political parties in relation to their organisation.
	A summary of those responses has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I have weighed up carefully all the responses, and in view of the overwhelming body of opinion in favour of maintaining the current number of MSPs, I propose in the interests of stability to seek to amend the Scotland Act accordingly. However, I also take very seriously the concerns about the operation of different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood. I therefore propose that an independent commission should be established to examine and make recommendations on issues caused by different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies.
	I expect that, subject to Parliamentary approval, any order giving effect to revised Westminster boundaries should be in place for the next general election, no later than June 2006. Consequently, the new commission, which has the approval of the Scottish Executive and is referred to in their submission, would sit after the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections. Any changes that it might propose to the Scotland Act would be a matter for this Parliament.
	Retaining the present number of 129 MSPs requires an amendment to the Scotland Act by way of primary legislation. It will also be necessary to provide for the routine review of Scottish Parliament constituency boundaries. I will be seeking agreement to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. Let me make it clear that any change to the Scotland Act will be narrowly drawn. The Government believe that the spirit of the constitutional convention must guide any changes to the legislation. This announcement acknowledges the fact that, as it approaches the end of its first term, the Scottish Parliament is a hard-working and effective institution committed to serving the needs of the Scottish people. It underpins the stability and success of the constitutional settlement in Scotland, which has strengthened the United Kingdom. I commend this statement to the House.

Jacqui Lait: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving me sight of her statement under the new terms of co-operation between the Government and the Opposition. The statement is not unexpected; we have been waiting for it for 264 days, which is more than the number of replies that she received to her consultation document. Perhaps there was too much reading for her to do in her otherwise busy day.
	Unlike the Government, the Conservatives have been consistent in wanting a reduction in the number of MSPs. As early as 28 January 1998, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) argued for such a reduction in line with the welcome reduction in the number of Scottish MPs. The then Minister, Henry McLeish, supported that. Since then, Conservatives in the Commons, the Lords, and the Scottish Parliament have consistently argued for the Government to uphold the terms of the Scotland Act—which set out the reduction—or, alternatively, for true devolution of power so that the Scottish Parliament could make its own decision. The right hon. Lady may recall that, in 1998, she voted to overturn an amendment to the Scotland Bill that would have had the same effect as her new plans. What specifically has happened in the interim to change her mind?
	Is the right hon. Lady aware that similar devolved parliaments elsewhere in the world need fewer members? For instance, in British Columbia, which I visited in the summer, the legislature has greater powers but only 79 members. Will she tell us why the Scottish Parliament needs 129? Will she also tell us why it needs all 17 of its Committees, and why it now needs 23 Ministers when the Scottish Office used to get along nicely with five?
	I would be grateful for clarification of the right hon. Lady's statement. Is my reading of it correct that, if her proposed new commission concludes that coterminosity is absolutely essential for the democratic process, she is prepared to retain the 72 Scottish MPs at Westminster? Will she confirm that that number will remain at 72 for the general election to be held by June 2006, and for the subsequent one? Will she also tell us whether she expects to introduce the Bill amending the Scotland Act before or after 1 May 2003?
	The Scottish Parliament will only work with public support. The Lib-Lab pact running the Scottish Executive is losing the confidence of the Scottish people. The right hon. Lady knew the first First Minister well, and she may remember him saying, on 11 November 1998, that
	Xover the next few years, we shall have experience of the Scottish Parliament in operation and can then assess how dependent it is on having 129 MSPs for its success. I suspect that that will not be a determining factor. What I believe will be the success of the Parliament will depend on its ability to deliver, to respond to Scottish public opinion and to involve Scottish public opinion in its affairs."—[Official Report, 11 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 386.]
	The second First Minister said on 12 May 1998 that he believed that the Parliament could operate effectively with fewer Members and that there were good arguments for maintaining the linkage in constituencies. The third First Minister came to office pledging to do less, better. He has failed to do so. How, then, does the right hon. Lady justify keeping more MSPs than envisaged by the Scotland Act? Will this not be a case of more MSPs and more MPs doing worse?

Helen Liddell: The hon. Lady has proved that she can count, but she has not proved an awful lot else. She asks what has happened since the consultation began and, indeed, since November 1998. First, let me remind her that in November 1998 she voted for a Lords amendment that would have guaranteed 129 not only for the first Scottish Parliament elections, but in perpetuity. I contend that it is she who is performing a U-turn today. She quoted the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) from January 1998, but she failed to quote his 11 November 1998 speech to the House in which he made it clear that
	XThe first thing that will be required to make the Scottish Parliament work properly is stability".—[Official Report, 11 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 387.]
	The hon. Gentleman accused the Government of defending instability in seeking to cut the number from 129. I suggest that the hon. Lady is a little confused.
	The hon. Lady asks about the independent commission that I propose. That commission will be truly independent. It will have an opportunity to look at all the issues relating to coterminosity, and it will be able to advise on any issue arising from having 129 MSPs and a smaller number of Westminster MPs than at present.
	I made available to the hon. Lady a copy of my statement, which makes it quite clear that I envisage that the boundary commission will have reported to me and that an order will have been laid before the House to reduce the number of Members of this House by June 2006, which is the last possible date for a general election. In relation to when that legislation is likely to be introduced to amend the Scotland Act, I would hope that it could be done as soon as parliamentary time allows, but I am not in control of when that might be.
	The hon. Lady talks about the lessons of devolution. I say to her that her lecturing the House about that is like the wolf giving Little Red Riding Hood advice on long-term care. The Tories have always opposed devolution, and they sought a no, no vote in the referendum. She asks me why 129 is essential. She will see from the replies to the consultation exercise that the overwhelming majority of people support 129. One of the main reasons for that is proportionality.
	I point out to the hon. Lady the fact that the Scottish Conservative party had zero constituency MSPs elected in the 1999 general election in Scotland. As a consequence of 129 and the electoral system, 18 Conservative MSPs were elected. There are few examples in modern history of a party with overwhelming support allowing a diminishing Opposition the chance to have some representation when they cannot win first-past-the-post seats.

John Thurso: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for her courtesy in letting me have an advance copy of her remarks. May I give a general welcome to the statement, which I believe is courageous? It shows that she has considered the problem seriously, and proposed a considered and constructive solution to the problems set out in the consultation paper. It also has the advantage of being in line with the recommendations made by my party in Scotland and the only Deputy First Minister that the Scottish Parliament has enjoyed. [Interruption.] Maybe they will let him keep the cup next time.
	May I refer to three points in particular? First, I recognise the Parliament's success, which I believe is self-evident, especially in how the Committee system has worked and in its proportionality.
	Secondly, the statement shows that the changes will be made through an amendment to the Scotland Act 1998. It is important that that take place on the Floor of the House with proper opportunity for Members to debate it.
	Thirdly, the Secretary of State proposes to set up an independent commission to consider the problems of coterminosity. May I ask the Secretary of State whether its remit will be as tightly drawn as in her statement, or will it have an opportunity to cast its net a little wider? In particular, will it be able to consider as a possibility amendments to the electoral system—for example, the use of the single transferable vote as a remedy for the problem of coterminosity?
	Will the Secretary of State consider devolving the routine review of the Scottish Parliament to a boundary commission for Scotland that is answerable in Scotland and operating within clear guidelines? In that context, I commend an amendment that was successful in the other place—not the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait)—which I tabled and which was then rejected by the Secretary of State's predecessors.
	We who have supported devolution for more than a century commend the Secretary of State for respecting the spirit of the constitutional convention, and, allowing for suitable questions on detail, we support the thrust of her statement.

Helen Liddell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the statement, and for the action that I propose.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the role and remit of the new independent commission. It will be appointed by the United Kingdom Government in consultation with the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament. It will be a non-statutory advisory body. I can only say that it is too early for me to be precise about its remit—a subsequent Government will have to make decisions about that, as no Government can bind their successor—but I would expect it to cover any issues arising from the operation of non-coterminous boundaries, and I would not expect it to be prevented from looking at proportional representation.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned a Scottish boundary commission. I see no reason to change the boundary commission as it currently operates. It is an independent body which does its work very effectively, and—I say this with all respect to the hon. Gentleman—I think that the establishment of a Scottish commission would just be tokenism.

George Foulkes: I thank the Secretary of State, for whom I retain the greatest respect, for agreeing that the merit of both the Scotland Act 1998 and the current provision lies in common boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood. Is that not, however, a tacit admission that these proposals will cause chaos and confusion with the different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood?
	While I welcome the establishment of the independent commission, I fear that it will come too late to minimise that chaos and confusion. May I urge the Secretary of State to consider setting it up far earlier?

Helen Liddell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments, but I must disagree with him about the chaos and confusion. It is not unusual for Members here to deal with different boundaries in a local government context, and also in the context of the European Parliament. I have, however, taken on board the comments that have been made—not least by electoral administrators, who, while not claiming that non-conterminous boundaries would be impossible, say that additional difficulties would be created.
	That brings me to my right hon. Friend's second point. He wants me to proceed earlier with the installation of the independent commission. If I did so, we would be engaged in a theoretical paper exercise on how boundaries would operate. What I propose will provide an opportunity to analyse the practical operation of non-coterminous boundaries, because that will happen anyway. If we assume that the next general election occurs in June 2006, given that the next Scottish parliamentary elections after 2003 will be in May 2007, we shall have a period in which to analyse the operation. If the independent commission feels that the difficulties created are too great, it will be able to propose remedies to the Secretary of State.

Pete Wishart: Is it not ironic that probably the only part of the House that will give the Secretary of State full support for her proposals is the Scottish National party Bench? Does she not think, though, that what this sorry exercise has done is expose the true enemies of the Scottish Parliament? Her own Back Benchers are now fuelled by hostility and jealousy because they are rightly ignored back home in Scotland, and there is an unholy alliance with the Conservatives, who have at least been consistent in opposing a Scottish Parliament that they never wanted..
	Will the Secretary of State now do the right and democratic thing, and ensure that the future size and structure of the Scottish Parliament remain an issue for the democratically elected Members of that Parliament? And while she is thinking about that, can she name one legislature in the world that does not determine its own size?

Helen Liddell: The true enemies of the Scottish Parliament are the separatists who seek to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party did not see fit to be part of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, that it has sought for more than 20 years to undermine the devolution settlement, and that in the general election of 2001 it had its worst result for almost 20 years. The Scottish people support devolution, and they oppose the separatist instincts of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. The people of this country see the Scottish Parliament as strengthening the United Kingdom, not wrecking it.

David Marshall: Bearing in mind the need for coterminous boundaries, and if the 129 number is so important, will the Secretary of State give serious consideration to rearranging the composition in order to elect two MSPs for each of the proposed new 59 Westminster constituencies, one man and one woman for each? That would give a total of 118 members elected on a first-past-the-post basis, to which could be added 11 list members. They would represent the whole of Scotland, unlike the current system, which involves eight separate regional divisions of seven. Would not that be fairer, more acceptable and more popular than the current situation?

Helen Liddell: I thank my hon. Friend for laying out that scenario. In establishing the independent commission, I can hardly say at this stage what its conclusions will be, but there will be nothing to prevent it from looking at his proposal.

Peter Duncan: The Secretary of State has quoted selectively from the debate on the Scotland Bill in 1998. I shall assist her with another quotation, from the former Minister Henry McLeish, who said:
	XWe also believe that the Parliament could operate effectively with fewer Members"—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 225.]
	What precisely has happened to change the Government's mind on that issue? Is not this self-serving consensus purely about jobs for the boys?

Helen Liddell: On the question of jobs for the boys, I notice that the hon. Gentleman jumps between the Front Bench and the Back Benches to try to swell Conservative numbers. I have conducted a consultation exercise, and the overwhelming majority of people have supported the retention of 129. They have done so because they believe in proportionality, which creates 18 jobs in the Scottish Parliament for Conservative MSPs who would otherwise have had no political career.

Jimmy Hood: May I disabuse my right hon. Friend or any commission that she sets up of the notion of seeking any solution that does not include coterminosity? I shall give one example and invite her to comment. One Lanarkshire seat that is planned under the boundary proposals would consist of 60 per cent. of Clydesdale, and 20 per cent. of each of the two neighbouring constituencies. That would involve one Westminster MP, three individually elected MSPs and 16 list MSPs. I repeat: may I disabuse her and the commission of any notion of moving away from coterminosity?

Helen Liddell: It is a fact that, in any event, for a certain period between the general elections for this House and for the Scottish Parliament there will not be coterminous constituencies; indeed, that period will allow the independent commission to take on board the very point that my hon. Friend makes. Should the arrangements prove unworkable, it will be up to the independent commission to come forward with proposals that the then Secretary of State could take into account.

Malcolm Bruce: I, too, acknowledge appreciation for the Secretary of State's sticking with the spirit of the constitutional convention, with which I was very closely involved in its first few years. It is also an important principle, on which the referendum was founded, that a Scottish Parliament must be elected by a proportional system. Any suggestion otherwise, such as that made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), would be totally contrary to the spirit of the convention, and of the referendum voted for by the Scottish people.
	The Secretary of State acknowledges that coterminosity will be untidy. We know that, but would not STV—as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)—resolve two problems? It would do away with the problem of coterminosity, and with the problem of there being two classes of MSP.

Helen Liddell: The hon. Gentleman compliments us on sticking to the terms of the constitutional convention's recommendations and to the Scotland Act, and concludes by asking for a different system of proportional representation within that. There is little doubt that if the commission looked at the situation in relation to the Scotland Act, it would conclude that a system of proportional representation was the only way of securing some kind of proportionality. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman to turn his mind to the fact that if we have 129 MSPs, plus a conclusion from the independent commission that there is a need for coterminous boundaries, there will have to be a change of some kind to enable those conclusions to be taken into account.

Brian H Donohoe: Surely one of the easiest solutions to the problem is to amend the Scotland Act to retain the 72 Westminster MPs, given that, over the four years, it has been demonstrated clearly that the work load of the Westminster MP has not in any way diminished. I am also reliably informed by those within the boundary commission that if there are similar boundaries between Westminster and Holyrood constituencies, it will be well nigh impossible to operate a system when it comes to the division of the wards within local government.

Helen Liddell: The reason for the number of MPs in this House prior to the introduction of devolution was largely to take account of the fact that Members of this House from Scottish constituencies had the job of scrutinising the separate legislation that was available through the Scottish system. For that reason, we ended up with a situation where the average size of Scottish constituencies was roughly 55,000, compared with 70,000 for English constituencies. It has been recognised from day one of the devolution debate that it would be essential to address the size of Scottish constituencies. The boundary commission has begun its work and must report to me between December of this year and December 2006. It is completely independent, and we must await its conclusions.
	On my hon. Friend's final point, I fear he may have misunderstood what the boundary commission has said. The boundary commission reviews local government boundaries without regard to the shape of parliamentary constituencies, so it would have no difficulty in coming to conclusions in relation to boundaries if we did not have coterminosity between Westminster and Holyrood constituencies.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will try to call everybody who has been standing, but one question at a time, and not a debate of the issues, would be very helpful.

Angus Robertson: I note that the Secretary of State did not take the opportunity to give the House an example of one single normal Parliament in the world that cannot determine its own size. Will she now give the House such an example?

Helen Liddell: The Scottish Parliament is a devolved parliament within the United Kingdom and is essential to the maintenance of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can point as much as he likes. He is a separatist, whereas I believe in the United Kingdom. The people of Scotland have voted for a devolved Parliament within the United Kingdom.

Andrew MacKinlay: Two great friends of mine who are twice my size and twice my height have asked what this has to do with me. I want to tell them. The size of the Scottish Parliament is not my business. Representation here is my business, and that of my constituents. I believe that all constituencies throughout the UK should be the same size, and I hope that the commission bears that in mind. Last week, we saw a reduction of 130,000 in the electorate of Northern Ireland. Every Member here should have the same number of constituents, and there should be separate compensation if Members' constituencies cover a large area. It should not be the other way round.

Helen Liddell: I note what my hon. Friend says. I want to put it on record that I am not one of the two people twice his size and weight who put pressure on him.

Anne McIntosh: I entirely endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I claim an interest, in that my constituency, with 74,000 electors, is set to disappear in the English boundary review. Will the right hon. Lady accept that she has not made a case for Scottish representatives in this place having smaller constituencies than ours? Constituents would be better served if Labour Members—such as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe)—paid more attention to Scottish matters and less to television programmes such as XCoronation Street".

Helen Liddell: I have not the foggiest idea what the hon. Lady is talking about. From the beginning of the devolution process, the Government have acknowledged that it would not be possible to continue with the size of representation of Scottish constituencies that obtained prior to devolution. That is why the boundary commission has begun work on the matter. However, the Government will take no lessons from Conservative Members on the operation of devolution. They have done everything in their power to thwart devolution, and for 18 years they put in place at every possible opportunity conditions that mean that the Scottish people resent the Conservatives.

Mark Lazarowicz: Given the overwhelming consensus of organisations in Scotland, my right hon. Friend has done the right thing by introducing her proposals with regard to the 129 MSPs. She has rejected my carefully crafted solution but, given that it was supported only by Brian Monteith and Margo MacDonald, I can see why. However, setting up the independent commission some time after 2007 could be a mistake. Does my right hon. Friend accept that having the debate about 129 for the past year has been something of a distraction in Scottish politics, and that continuing the debate for the next five years might be even more of a distraction?

Helen Liddell: I repeat that I have chosen the period after 2007 because I want to gather practical evidence about how coterminous boundaries work. Any other approach would be a paper exercise and we would end up working out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We need practical evidence about coterminosity, and the independent commission needs the best available information when it gives advice to Ministers.

Alistair Carmichael: I, too, commend the Secretary of State for her brave and balanced approach, despite the siren voices of self-interest from Labour Back-Bench Members. Will she now turn her searching gaze on her Department of State, which, once this exercise is complete, must surely have outlived its usefulness?

Helen Liddell: It is strange that an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency should seek a reduction in Scotland's voice in government. That is bizarre. I believe in the United Kingdom, and that Scotland's voice should be heard in the Cabinet.

Michael Connarty: My right hon. Friend will know that I made a submission similar to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), which she seems to have rejected out of hand. From what has been said today, it is clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) made a salient point when he said that we were in for five years of people talking down the arrangement that my right hon. Friend proposes. Will she ensure that the independent commission will be included on the face of the Bill to amend the Scotland Act, and that it will not be possible for someone else to withdraw it at a later date? In addition, will she also ensure that the issues at which the commission will look will also be included on the face of the Bill? In that way, people will know the terms on which the debate will be conducted over the five years. Otherwise, everyone will just be making up their own rules and talking down my right hon. Friend's solution—which, by the way, I believe to be an absolute shambles.

Helen Liddell: I remind my hon. Friend of the constitutional principle that no Government can bind their successor. Decisions on the matter will have to be taken by a subsequent Government, as the next general election will be held in 2006. I say again that an endless paper exercise between now and 2007 would mean that we found ourselves in the sort of argument that my hon. Friend has described. I believe that practical evidence must be gathered. In that way, sound decisions can be taken about the proper operation of democracy in Scotland, both in Holyrood and at Westminster.

Eleanor Laing: Can the Secretary of State tell us how much the taxpayer is paying for all these extra MSPs? Does she agree that most people in Scotland think that the money would be better spent on schools and hospitals?

Helen Liddell: Does the hon. Lady really want me to go through the Government's increased expenditure on schools and hospitals in Scotland? Shall we talk for a little while about the fact that all 26 of Glasgow's schools are being refreshed in the course of this year? Or shall I tell her that the Barnett formula ensures that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive have responsibility for determining their priorities? That is as it should be—it is what devolution is all about. The only people for whom jobs have been created are the 18 Scottish Tories who could not win under first-past-the-post system.

Eric Joyce: My right hon. Friend will be aware that much of the scepticism concerning the numbers of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament is created by the cynical practice of the Scottish National party in encouraging list MSPs to pose as constituency MPs. Does she agree that that strategy will completely fail and the scepticism will evaporate when it comes to the test next May?

Helen Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We need only look at the results of the 2001 election in Scotland. The SNP had its worst result since the mid-1980s; it actually managed to lose a seat to the Tories, which is almost unheard-of, and saw the biggest drop in support of any political party. My proposals are about stability. The SNP wants instability—it is not interested in devolution, simply in breaking up the United Kingdom. We believe that divorce would wreck the prospects for Scottish jobs and the Scottish constitution. The Scottish people have rejected it and this House will reject it again.

Alan Reid: The Scottish Constitutional Convention reached a consensus on proportional representation. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is still the Government's policy that the Scottish Parliament should be elected by proportional representation? If so, and if the Government are still in power when the independent commission is set up, will they write it into the remit of the commission that it can only examine proportional systems of election?

Helen Liddell: I confirm that it is the Government's view that the Scottish Parliament should be elected by a system of proportional representation, but I am not in a position to bind any subsequent Administration. That would be complacent and arrogant of me. However, I believe that when the independent commission looks at the operation of the Scottish Parliament and the need for coterminous boundaries, it will conclude that the system of proportional representation is the only way to ensure that parties which do not succeed in winning first-past-the-post places should be able to be elected to that Parliament to give a balance within the Parliament. There can be very few international examples of a party with the overwhelming support that my party has in Scotland being prepared to give up some of that power in the interests of a more balanced assembly. That is what we did with the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.

David Hamilton: As one who has not been here long and knew beforehand that there would probably be a reduction of MPs, I do not have a problem with the proposal. However, I find it unbelievable that at a time when the boundary commission is recommending that I go coterminous with my council, it is also recommended that 16 MSPs are mirrored against me. The commission has to put in place a mechanism before that happens. My colleagues are right that the proposal must be right for everybody in Scotland, which is not the case at present.

Helen Liddell: My hon. Friend is proposing a paper exercise that will not take into account the actual operation of boundaries one way or the other. I return to the point that there will inevitably be a period following the next election for this place and the 2007 Scottish Parliament election when, with the best will in the world, there cannot be coterminosity. I believe that that is the appropriate time for the independent commission to sit.

John Baron: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) about what hard evidence exists to suggest that 20 Ministers are required to do the job that five used to do prior to devolution? Is it simply a case of jobs for the boys?

Helen Liddell: That is a matter for the First Minister and for the Scottish Parliament, but everyone on the Labour Benches remembers what a Tory Scottish Office did to Scotland—not least of which was the poll tax. It is not numbers that matter but quality and commitment to Scotland.

Russell Brown: I very much applaud my right hon. Friend's bold stance on stability for the Scottish Parliament, which I firmly believe is required. Coterminosity is extremely important. However, the boundary commission's proposals for the south of Scotland would give us one MP and four first-past-the post elected MSPs. Although I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's point that the commission's considerations will go beyond 2007, there could be a six-year gap in which coterminosity does not exist. The simplest way out of the problem would be for my right hon. Friend to accept the boundary commission's proposals but to implement them only at the next but one general election in England and Wales.

Helen Liddell: I understand my hon. Friend's strong views on the matter and I have a great deal of sympathy with his position. However, I have to be bound by the recommendations of the independent boundary commission and I cannot say when I shall receive its report. I can only state that it must be made before December 2006. I do not want falsely to raise my hon. Friend's hopes, but I believe that it may be possible to implement the commission's recommendations prior to the next general election.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Secretary of State says that she wants to narrow down changes to the Scotland Act 1998. Will that stop Scottish National party Members or other Members from proposing changes that would amend it? Is she not stifling Parliament's ability to make decisions should there be a need for major changes when the commission has produced its recommendations?

Helen Liddell: The Scotland Act arose from the Scottish constitutional convention, which achieved broad consensus across civic Scotland, involving political parties, the churches, voluntary organisations and the trade unions. The Scottish Conservative party decided not to be part of that constitutional convention—as indeed did the Scottish National party. The Scottish Parliament grew out of that consensus. I shall seek to build on that consensus. That is what the Scottish people wanted and they are entitled to have what they want. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may slap his thigh in pantomime fashion as much as he wants but we have the support of the Scottish people—his party does not.

John Robertson: We are keeping the best until last.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made great efforts to explain that there will be a trial period between the next general election and the report of the commission, when we shall have to go back to the Scotland Act in order to implement the commission's recommendations. May I make another suggestion? Could we have a trial period after the next general election so that we can see how the Act is working? Why do we not leave the Act alone so that it can work as it was supposed to do?

Helen Liddell: I am unclear as to my hon. Friend's recommendation. I think that he is recommending the ultimate in instability—reducing the number of MSPs and then restoring the number to 129 after a certain period. It is clear from the responses to the consultation exercise that stability is the key thing that people want. I would have thought that, three and a half years into a constitutional settlement which changes a 300-year-old arrangement, the one thing that we want to achieve is stability. My hon. Friend's suggestion would be a recipe for instability.

Points of Order

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At Question Time, the Prime Minister alluded to developments in the fisheries negotiations in Europe. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, been made aware of whether the Government intend to report to the House before it rises as to the conduct of those negotiations? Given that the earliest date that the House may be able to debate any decisions arising from the negotiations is in mid-January, some weeks after draconian cuts may be introduced, what is the procedural position when the House has to debate in retrospect measures that could bring ruination for many coastal communities in the country?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot speculate on the future situation; but as to the present, I have received no notification of the intention of a Minister to report to the House.

Marion Roe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, there has been some concern recently about names being improperly recorded at the Telling Desks during a vote. The most recent example is that I have been recorded in Hansard on 16 December in column 654 as voting for the Hunting Bill, when purely because I will be one of the Chairmen of the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill, I had to abstain on that occasion in accordance with precedent. Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you please ensure that this mistake is corrected, so that my constituents and the press know that I did not vote on that Bill because of my duty to the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Lady's comment will be noted. I agree with her that it is extremely important for those hon. Members who take on the responsibility of chairing Committees and therefore abide by certain rules that prevent them from voting in connection with the Bills that those Committees are considering that their position is not abused either by inaccuracies in recording their votes or, indeed, in reporting that they have voted when they have not. I hope that that will be put right and that it will not happen again in future.

Orders of the Day

INCOME TAX (EARNINGS AND PENSIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second reading committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Question agreed to.

INCOME TAX (EARNINGS AND PENSIONS) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to tax which may arise from provisions restating, with minor changes, certain enactments relating to income tax on employment income, pension income and social security income.—[Dan Norris.]
	Question agreed to.

REGULATORY REFORM

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

Licensing

That the draft Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 17th December 2002, be approved.—[Dan Norris.]
	Question agreed to.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill (Programme)(No. 2)

Nick Raynsford: I beg to move,
	That, in accordance with the Resolution of the Programming Committee of 12th December 2002 and pursuant to the Programme Order of 26th November 2002 relating to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill (Clauses 1 to 4), proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) by the times specified in the Table—
	
		Table
		
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Clause 1 two and a half hours after the commencement of any proceedings on a motion relating to the Resolution 
			 Clause 2 five hours after the commencement of such proceedings 
			 Clause 3 five and a half hours after the commencement of such proceedings 
			 Clause 4 six hours after the commencement of such proceedings 
		
	
	It is right that clauses 1 to 4 should be debated today on the Floor of the House. Those clauses provide for referendums to be held about establishing regional assemblies, set out the referendum question, entitlement to vote and the referendum period, and we consider them to be of first-class constitutional importance. The remaining clauses do not raise such issues, and it is appropriate that we will consider them in Committee Upstairs.
	The motion proposes a split of time between the clauses. Clause 1, on the power to order referendums, should be concluded two hours after the start of the debate. Clause 2, on the referendum question, should be concluded five hours after the start. Clause 3, on the entitlement to vote, should be concluded five and a half hours after the start, and clause 4, on the referendum period, should be concluded six hours after the start. That indicates that we will probably still be at it a little after 11 o'clock this evening.
	That allocation of time has been based, broadly, on the subject matter of each clause and the number of amendments currently tabled to each clause. The split seems to us to be broadly right, allowing about 40 per cent. of the time to consider clause 1—one of the most important clauses in the Bill—about the same proportion of time to consider clause 2, which deals with the referendum question and which has obviously generated a lot of interest, while ensuring that the Committee of the whole House has time to consider the other issues raised by clauses 3 and 4. That is a sensible allocation of time, which should allow full and proper scrutiny of all those issues.

Philip Hammond: I shall be very brief. For the record, we are disappointed about the allocation of only one day for the Committee of the whole House to debate a Bill that may have profound constitutional implications.
	Having failed to persuade the Government of the need for a further day's debate on the Floor of the House, we very much regret the decision to limit the total amount of time for debate today to just six hours. We regret even more the decision to insert intermediate guillotines, making it almost certain that some of the most important issues arising from the Bill will be debated neither on the Floor of the House, nor in Standing Committee.
	However, given the irony that any discussion of the iniquity of the timetable and any Division on it erodes still further the very limited time available for debate, I will do no more than place those concerns on record.

Douglas Hogg: I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has said. To use the Minister's words, this is a matter of first-class constitutional importance. It is therefore welcome that this part of the Bill is debated on the Floor of the House, which I acknowledge. I object, however, to the fact that we are subjecting such an important first-class constitutional measure to a guillotine or timetable.
	Of course, the Minister is entirely right to speak of the Bill's importance. Clauses 1 and 2 have the possible effect, for example, of incorporating Lincolnshire into the east midlands region, which Lincolnshire does not want, and could lead to the abolition of the county council in Lincolnshire, which Lincolnshire does not want. It is therefore a matter of substantial importance, and it will also apply to all the shire counties, which are grouped within regions.
	I very much object to a process of timetabling. I am bound to say that although Bills are now frequently subject to timetabling, it is rare that we have the opportunity to discuss a motion. Because of the Standing Orders that the House has been bullied into passing, timetable motions, on the whole, are no longer debated, which does not enable Members to protest at the process. I am glad to say, however, that on this occasion we can protest at the process with particular reference to this motion.
	My first point is an important one. An implied bargain exists between the electorate and the House that if the electorate accept the obligations of legislation, we at least will do our part in scrutinising the legislation. Inevitably, however, as my hon. Friend said, the timetable process prevents the House from performing that function. Legislation that has not been properly discussed will therefore leave the House to go to the other place, and, no doubt, in the fullness of time, there will be a further timetable motion to deal with the amendments coming from the other place. What kind of democracy is that?
	On the second question that we need to ask ourselves, who has decided the terms of the motion? My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has made it plain that he and his colleagues wanted two days. He was not—and we are not—allowed two days; we are allowed only one day. What will be the consequence of that? The Executive, who have charge of the Bill, will come to the House and tell us that one day is sufficient. To make sure that we only have that which they want, they will use a whipped vote, should there be a Division, to force that through. I regard that as a disgrace.
	Furthermore, if we were to push this motion to a Division, and if right hon. and hon. Members wanted to speak for up to 45 minutes on the matter, that would come out of the time allocated to the clauses, which are substantial. To take the point even further, clause 1 deals with the important question of the regional assemblies, clause 2 deals with important questions as to the language of the referendum, and substantive amendments have been tabled. If we choose to divide on each of the possible amendments in clause 1 and on stand part, we will vote at least three times, and perhaps more. That will reduce the time available to this House to debate the other clauses.
	The truth is that we have got used to this process because we cannot stop it. The Government have got used to bullying the House because they know that they can do so. We should, however, take every opportunity to protest. I will not press for a Division on the matter tonight for the reason advanced by my hon. Friend—I am conscious that that will use up time allocated to the debate. This process, however, is contrary to what I understand democracy to be. It is bad law making and bad democracy, and the Labour Front Bench should be profoundly ashamed of their activity.

Stephen Dorrell: I shall be brief for all the reasons that have been set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). I wish to add my voice of protest at the timetable to which the House is being asked to agree and, in particular, at the time allowed to debate clause 1.
	The first group of amendments on clause 1 deals with the question of whether the House should agree to a Bill that will introduce referendums on the establishment of regional assemblies before it is known what powers those assemblies will have. We do not know what the implications of establishing assemblies will be for the county councils in Lincolnshire and my neighbouring county of Leicestershire. Those are fundamental questions relating to the governance of my constituents and those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and to the provision of essential public services in that area.
	The timetable asks us, in just two and a half hours, to accept the principle of holding referendums to establish regional assemblies without clear knowledge of the powers that the assemblies will have. Under the timetable motion, the House will have two and a half hours less the time that we take to protest against the motion to scrutinise that proposal. I protest vigorously against the principle that two and a half hours is enough to debate that fundamental and wholly objectionable proposal. However, I do so with so brevity—but none the less passion for that—so that we can move on to deal with the substance of the issue.

Gary Streeter: I shall also be brief in recording my protest at the way in which the Government are timetabling the Bill. Although I protest, I am not surprised at the way in which they are handling the matter. We learned in Standing Committee that—not before the Bill receives Royal Assent, not before it goes to another place and not before it returns to the House for Report and Third Reading—the Government were taking soundings under clause 1 before the Bill had even gone to Standing Committee. Such is the Government's contempt for the proceedings of the House. They do not appear to care that the Bill might be amended on its way through. They assume that it will become law, so they have already issued documents and taken soundings all over the country as to the level of interest in referendums. They did that before the Bill had even reached Standing Committee. If ever there were an illustration that the Government had an overbearing attitude to the House and an arrogance towards its procedures, that would surely be it. That is why I place on record my strong protests at the lack of time that there will be to discuss this important measure today.

Richard Shepherd: The Minister has told us that the Bill is a matter of first importance for the constitution. If it is of first importance for the constitution, I would argue that it is wholly inappropriate to guillotine it. A measure of first importance for the constitution would not have been guillotined until this Government came to office in 1997.
	I cannot believe that a local government reorganisation, with limited powers asserted that may indeed undo counties that have been in existence for a long time, is anything more than a local government measure. However, even if my judgment were correct and the Bill were merely a matter of local government reorganisation, I would still argue against a guillotine. Guillotines have become an instrument of the management and denigration of the House. We can no longer debate many of the issues that are of relevance and importance to us. I want to re-emphasise, however, that a matter of first-class constitutional importance cannot necessitate a guillotine.
	The Minister and the Secretary of State have argued that the proposal is a balancing measure to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh devolution, but it is not. No one could seriously or rationally argue that. The idea is that it will settle the score and make people in England comfortable with the fact that they are grasping real and relevant powers at a local level. All those are important arguments and should not be discussed under the threat of the curtailment of debate. Around me are eminently rational and reasonable people who want to dispose of the matter appropriately. We do not know the rhythm or time that a debate will take, but every one of us should be concerned whether the abolition of, say, Shropshire or Staffordshire is appropriate.
	I seriously oppose what has become the instrument of this Xforthwith" Government—the guillotine motion. It is clear from our Order Papers that much of our business is forthwith. We have majoritarianism. It is a freak of parliamentary procedure that we have a 45-minute window of opportunity in which we can express our annoyance and anger at the denigration of Parliament. Ordinarily, the matter could have been contained in the motion that followed immediately on Second Reading. I oppose this guillotine.

Doug Henderson: I support the guillotine motion. I may not be eminent, but I assure the House that I consider myself reasonable. I remember what happened with the Scotland Act 1978 when I was involved in Scottish politics in the 1970s. There was a huge demand in Scotland not necessarily for devolution, but for the devolution debate so that the different arguments could be put. People in Scotland got extremely frustrated that it took Parliament about three years to reach a decision by correctly following the procedures of the time and debating the matter on the Floor of the House. That caused much disillusionment afterwards. I am a bit surprised to hear what the Conservatives have to say because they were the worst losers eventually. The electorate were more cynical about them than they were about even the parliamentary process.
	People in the English regions want the issue debated and those in my region of the north-east support the proposal. The Government are offering people a choice. The Bill is enabling legislation that allows a referendum to be held. If people in Lincolnshire do not want to be part of a greater area, they will vote against it.

Douglas Hogg: It is all very well to say that if the people of Lincolnshire vote against the proposal they will not be part of it, but if other people in the area vote in favour of it, they will be.

Doug Henderson: That is complete tautology. That is bound to be the case in any large area. It is like saying that if people in Westerhope in Newcastle are outvoted by people in the east side of the city—

Kevan Jones: They usually were.

Doug Henderson: Yes, they used to be. However, I do not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point.

David Curry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Doug Henderson: No, I want to finish and do not want to deny anyone the chance to speak.
	People expect a decision. They want a choice. Given the way in which we have delayed and obfuscated before, we should support the motion.

Nick Raynsford: We have heard much synthetic indignation from Conservative Members. The arrangements have ensured full and proper scrutiny of the Bill, which has been the subject of detailed consideration over several days Upstairs. It is a matter of agreement between the usual channels that one day should be allocated—[Interruption.] It was agreed that one day should be allocated for a debate on the Floor on the House. We have six hours for that debate, which will allow thorough consideration. Obviously I will be keen to hear the comments and interventions from Opposition Members who have raised their concerns in this preliminary debate. The longer we spend debating the programme resolution, the less time we have to debate the substance of the clauses, so I commend the motion to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

(Clauses 1 to 4)
	Considered in Committee.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]
	 — 
	Clause 1
	 — 
	Referendums

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 1, line 5, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3)'.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 46, in page 1, line 9, leave out subsections (3) to (8) and insert—
	'(3) No order under subsection 1 shall be made unless—
	(a) a review of the boundaries of the regions in England has been conducted in accordance with section [regional boundaries]; and
	(b) an Act setting out the powers and functions of elected regional assemblies shall have received Royal Assent; and
	(c) the Secretary of State has concluded on the basis of the evidence available to him that there is substantial support from the business community within the region for the holding of such a referendum; and
	(d) the Secretary of State has commissioned and published a report by an independent auditor expressing his opinion that, on the basis of the information available to him at the time of his report, no additional public expenditure overall would be incurred as a result of the proposed implementation of elected regional assembles and the associate reorganisation of local government in the region'.'.
	No. 35, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'unless' to end of line and insert
	'the condition in subsection (4) below is satisfied in relation to the region.'.
	No. 43, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'two'.
	No. 44, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'satisfied' to end.
	No. 36, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'first'.
	No. 24, in page 1, line 11, leave out from 'has' to end of line 12 and insert
	'concluded on the basis of the evidence available that it is probable that at least twentyfive per cent.of the persons eligible to vote in a referendum held pursuant to section 1 would vote in favour of an elected regional assembly for the region if such a referendum were held.'.
	No. 34, in page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (5).
	No. 15, in page 1, line 14, at end add—
	'(5A) The third condition is that an Act setting out the powers and functions of elected regional assemblies shall have received Royal Assent.'.
	No. 17, in page 1, line 14, at end add—
	'(5A) The third condition is that the Secretary of State has concluded on the basis of the evidence available to him that there is substantial support from the business community within the region for the holding of such a referendum.'.
	No. 18, in page 1, line 14, at end add—
	'(5A) The third condition is that the Secretary of State has commissioned and published a report by an independent auditor expressing the opinion that, on the basis of the information available to him at the time of his report, no additional public expenditure overall would be incurred as a result of the proposed implementation of elected regional assemblies and the associated reorganisation of local government in the region.'.
	No. 9, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
	No. 10, in page 2, line 12, leave out
	'if subsection (6) does not apply'.
	No. 23, in clause 2, page 2, line 33, at end add—
	'It is not proposed to proceed with the establishment of elected regional assemblies in any region where less than twentyfive per cent.of the persons eligible to vote in a referendum vote in favour of the establishment of an elected regional assembly for the region.'.

Philip Hammond: In Committee our duty is to examine the detail of the Bill, and that is precisely what we shall do over the next few hours in respect of clause 1, which introduces the arrangements for referendums.
	Briefly, and by way of putting some context around these debates, it may be useful if I outline the Conservatives' position on the Government's concept of regional assemblies, which we believe is fatally flawed. It introduces an extra tier of government that is more remote from the people. It will undermine local government. It is based on arbitrary and often meaningless boundaries, which mostly have no resonance whatever with the population. It will struggle, in most cases, to create any real sense of identity, and in practice it will be tightly constrained by central Government and watched over by strengthened Government offices for the regions. It will require a wholesale reorganisation of two-tier local government to boot, including the abolition of many, if not most, of our historic counties.
	We would not choose to go down that route. However, we recognise the need to address the question of local government in its widest sense—by that I mean the tiers of government between Westminster and the individual citizen—in England, following the Scottish and Welsh devolution settlements. We recognise too the very real sense in some regions that decisions made in London are too remote and not always responsive enough to local mood.

Jim Knight: Where in the Bill does it say that counties will be abolished? It says that nowhere in the Bill, so is not that idea the misinformation that we normally hear from the Conservative party?

Philip Hammond: I suspect that the matter will be debated at some length. The Government have made clear in the White Paper their requirement that if regional elected assemblies go ahead, we will have all-unitary local government in those areas. I suggested to the Minister yesterday that he might like to indicate whether a unitary Kent authority with a population of 2 million would be acceptable, and he declined to be drawn, saying that he had an open mind on all these issues. However, I suspect that my right hon. and hon. Friends will have their own views about the likely outcome of local government reorganisation.

Kevan Jones: rose—

Philip Hammond: I am mindful of the time, so I will make a little progress if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
	I say to the Minister that this is not a solution for all England, and in their heart of hearts the Government know that. It is a response to the specific concerns of one or perhaps two areas masquerading as a final solution to the English question. We would prefer it if the Government went back to the drawing board and tried to build from established units of local government, rather than seeking to sweep them away. However, we recognise that the Government are committed to the process, and our purpose today is to address some of our specific concerns about the Bill.
	Clause 1 sets out the process for initiating a pre-legislative referendum and the conditions that must be met before one can be held, as well as preparations for the establishment of regional assemblies. On closer inspection, this rather large group of amendments can be whittled down. Amendments Nos. 15, 17 and 18, together with the paving amendments Nos. 43 and 44, effectively duplicate amendments Nos. 45 and 46, but were tabled because it was possible that the Standing Committee would have reached clause 26 before today, in which case amendment No. 46 could not be selected. I am glad that it has been selected, and I shall address it rather than amendments Nos. 15, 17 and 18, as it embodies our preferred solution.
	Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 tabled by the Liberal Democrats seek to reduce the conditions of precedent and eliminate the link in the Bill to local government reorganisation. We are sympathetic to the objection to the compulsory unitarisation of England, which the Liberals are targeting. They have correctly identified the problem, but have drawn the wrong conclusion. The correct conclusion is that the Government's proposals for regional government in Britain simply do not work—they either involve the compulsory reorganisation of local government or, in the Liberals' preferred option, the imposition of a third tier of government.

David Clelland: Amendment No. 46 calls for a review of the boundaries of the English regions, but as they were basically drawn up by the last Conservative Government, would the hon. Gentleman tell us which ones they got wrong?

Philip Hammond: Yes, in just a moment if the hon. Gentleman would bear with me.
	Amendment Nos. 46, 24, 23, 9 and 10 address substantive issues. Amendment No. 46 deals with conditions of precedent that must be met before the Secretary of State can call a referendum in a region. Proposed subsection (3)(a) imposes a requirement for a review of regional boundaries. Members on both sides of the House will know that one of the principal objections to the Government's proposal concerns the unwieldy and incoherent nature of the regions and their disparity in size. The smallest region, the north-east, has a population of about 2.5 million; the largest region, the south-east, has a population of 8 million. The electorate per directly elected assembly member will range from 150,000 in the smallest region to nearly 350,000 in the largest region. People in Cornwall do not identify with Bristol; people in Dover have little in common with Banbury. Arguably, only the north-east has a coherent or readily recognisable regional identity. If the regions are to work, they must be natural entities with a sense of identity.
	The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) asked why I am dissatisfied with the current regional boundaries, when they were indeed established by the previous Government. However, those regions were established for convenience as a tier of administrative government and, as vastly disparate areas, are simply not suitable for the introduction of democratically elected institutions.

Edward Davey: For the second time in debates on the Bill the hon. Gentleman has said that the Conservatives now recognise that people in the north-east have regional aspirations. Will he tell the Committee how the Conservatives would allow the people of the north-east to realise their legitimate regional aspirations?

Philip Hammond: We recognise—the hon. Gentleman has heard this before—that people in some parts of the United Kingdom feel that decision making in London is remote from them. We believe that it is essential to strengthen local government to ensure genuine devolution of power, rooted in natural communities in cities and counties where people have a true sense of identity. That is the way to strengthen the system of government in this country.

Joyce Quin: How would strengthening local government respond to regional identity, which the hon. Gentleman has conceded exists in the case of the north-east?

Philip Hammond: I said that regional identity may exist in the north-east. Of the Government's proposed regions, that is the one where, by general consensus, there is most likely to be interest in a regional identity. If the proposal is to work, it must be an all-England solution. That is the point that I was about to make. If the Government want to engage the population, they must start from the bottom and work up.

Kevan Jones: rose—

Philip Hammond: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must make progress. We have a very constrained timetable for debate today.

Edward Davey: On that point—

Philip Hammond: Very well. I shall give way one more time to the hon. Gentleman.

Edward Davey: I want to explore the hon. Gentleman's logic a little further. He said that there were regional aspirations in the north-east, but that those could be realised only through regional government throughout England. Does he not realise the logical inconsistency of his argument?

Philip Hammond: No, that is not what I said. I said that if the solution is to be workable, it must be applicable throughout England. It is no good the Government proposing a solution that purports to be a resolution to the question of governance across England, if it applies in only one or, at most, two regions.

Jim Knight: rose—

George Howarth: rose—

Philip Hammond: I shall make some progress. Hon. Gentlemen will have plenty of opportunity to speak later.
	Paragraph (a) of the amendment refers to new clause 3, which will be considered in due course in Standing Committee. New clause 3 establishes a review of the regions based on submissions from local authorities. It requires the Secretary of State to invite all local authorities to submit proposals to him for the creation of regions for the purposes of the Bill. It also requires the Secretary of State to invite other persons and bodies that appear to him to represent relevant interests to submit proposals, and to ask the Electoral Commission to comment on those submissions and make proposals to the Secretary of State for the creation of regions, having regard to the desirability of all regions being approximately equal in size—one of the great flaws in the Government's proposal—and having regard also to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities.

George Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall certainly support the Opposition in one of their amendments on clause 2. I am considering supporting them on this group. First, however, I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman's thinking. My argument, as someone representing a Merseyside constituency, is that Merseyside does not fit neatly into the fictional north-west. If I supported the hon. Gentleman on amendment No. 46, and in the unlikely event that it was carried, would that, in his opinion, enable Merseyside to come up with a totally different solution?

Philip Hammond: That is the purpose of paragraph (a) of amendment No. 46 and new clause 3, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has studied. Essentially, the local authorities in the proposed regions would be invited to make their own proposals. The Electoral Commission—not the Secretary of State—an independent body that already controls the boundary committee and has expertise in these matters, would consider those proposals and present to the Secretary of State a proposal for a sensible structure of regions that would allow identities such as the one about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned to be effectively recognised.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the original boundaries were set purely for administrative convenience. He says that the proposal in new clause 3 is to establish regions of approximately the same size, but are not regions that reflect regional identities bound to vary in size? He is simply creating regions that reflect administrative convenience, not identity.

Philip Hammond: I accept entirely that there will always be a tension, but it is no good the Minister nodding. What he is proposing are regions that do not reflect any sense of identity. What does Banbury have in common with Dover? We have already heard that the people of Lincolnshire do not want to be included in the east midlands. We have all heard in Committee that the people of Shropshire do not regard themselves as being in the west midlands. The problem already exists, and it is compounded by the huge disparity in size between the different regions that the existing structure proposes.

Nick Raynsford: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he clarify whether he proposes that the boundary review should cover London, as that is not clear in the amendment?

Philip Hammond: Of course not. The subject under discussion is the situation in England, excluding Greater London, which has been dealt with in previous legislation, as the Minister is well aware.
	The proposals seem the sensible and obvious way of proceeding if there is a genuine desire for an all-England workable regional government solution. It is the absurdity and arbitrariness of the boundaries that have generated the most hostility to the Government's proposals. Their only response is simply to say that it would take too long to conduct a boundary review before implementing a referendum, but they are prepared to delay a referendum while a local government review is carried out.
	Paragraph (b) of the subsection set out in the amendment deals with our concerns about pre-legislative referendums. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) pointed out that we are asking the public to vote for a pig in a poke. They have no idea of what powers regional assemblies would have or what authority they would represent. We must trust the Minister when he says that the detail is in a White Paper or consultation document, but we would rather see the measures in place to ensure that people are aware of precisely what the powers and responsibilities of the regional assemblies would be if they opted for them, including the tax-raising powers.
	There is an almost bizarre contrast between the Government's absolute and unshakeable commitment to ensuring that local government reorganisation is done and dusted, reported on and established in black and white before a referendum is held and their apparent failure to set out the substance of the powers that will be given to the regional assemblies that will be created if the referendum is successful. People will be asked to vote when the substantive issues are still unclear, but we are told that the subsidiary issue must be resolved first. Incidentally, neither do the Government propose that the electoral boundaries of the districts used in a region for the election of regional assemblymen will be defined before a referendum takes place.
	Paragraph (c) would require there to be substantial business support in a region before a referendum is called. The Bill already provides for a so-called test of an appropriate level of interest in holding a referendum, although that is undefined. One of the Government's principal arguments in favour of regional assemblies has been that they will boost regional economic growth. At the very least, that case has not been proven. Indeed, in Scotland, the opposite appears to be the case. Scotland has enjoyed negative—if that is the right word—GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2001 and the first quarter of 2002, which is the classic definition of a recession. Overall, in the year up to the second quarter of 2002, its GDP grew by just 0.3 per cent., which is not much more than a 10th of growth of the UK as a whole.

Doug Henderson: I hate to refer back to the Scottish issue again, but I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that any Scottish industrialist or business person—I know quite a few of them—would argue that the reason for the relative slowness of the Scottish economy is the Scottish Parliament. It is clearly due to the decline in the technology industries. There is no argument about that in Scotland, so I do not know where he got that idea from.

Philip Hammond: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman: I got it from the CBI, which is using Scotland as an example that England should not follow, as it shows how additional bureaucracy and layers of government can impose burdens that restrict economic growth.
	I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is confused about that, because it appears that the Deputy Prime Minister is also confused. On 20 November, referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), he said:
	XHe must have been asleep for months, during which time the CBI and other representatives of industry have made it clear that they are supportive of the proposals."—[Official Report, 20 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 630.]
	For the record, and to clear up any residual confusion in the mind of the Deputy Prime Minister, I shall quote from a Confederation of British Industry press release issued on 23 September, which stated that its members
	Xhave given 'a vote of no confidence' in government plans to develop the English regions."
	In case that was not clear enough for the Deputy Prime Minister, the director general of the CBI bothered to go all the way to the Labour party conference to say it again. There, he said:
	XBusiness doesn't believe that regional assemblies will deliver . . . There is a real danger they could make a bad situation even worse."
	I would suggest to the Minister, therefore, that it was perhaps not my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch who had been asleep for all those months but the Deputy Prime Minister, at the Labour party conference. Perhaps those who attend Labour party conferences will have some sympathy with him.
	Regional assemblies will take control of the regional development agencies. The creation of elected regional assemblies is thus a key issue for business in the regions, and business interests have to be taken into account. Business will clearly have no vote in a referendum, if one is called, so it is right and proper that the Secretary of State should be obliged to establish—before calling a referendum—that there is substantial business support for such a referendum in the region in question.

Derek Foster: The hon. Gentleman is now arguing that the regional assemblies taking responsibility for the regional development agencies is a substantial reason for the CBI being against the proposal. I remember distinctly, however, having campaigned for regional development agencies for 25 years, that the CBI was almost entirely opposed to RDAs—not only in the north-east, but almost everywhere else as well. This therefore seems like complete opportunism on the part of the CBI, and the Tory party is erecting it as a hurdle for the Bill to jump over.

Philip Hammond: It is interesting that Labour Members have spent most of the last five years citing the CBI's support for everything that they are doing, whenever the CBI has made observations that the Government find helpful. Now that the CBI has made an objective observation expressing the views of business in the regions about this proposal, Labour Members want to demonise it. That is very telling.

Jim Knight: rose—

David Borrow: rose—

Philip Hammond: I shall make some progress if I may, because there is quite a lot to get through, and I am sure that other hon. Members will want to contribute to this debate, which is only one of the three debates that we wish to have in the first two and a half hours of our allocated time.
	Paragraph (d) in amendment No. 46 seeks to introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to produce an independent auditor's report. The Labour party manifesto of 1997 stated:
	XIn time we will introduce legislation to allow the people, region by region, to decide in a referendum whether they want elected regional government. Only where clear popular consent is established will arrangements be made for elected regional assemblies. This would require a predominantly unitary system of local government, as presently exists . . . and confirmation by independent auditors that no additional public expenditure overall would be involved."
	That was Labour's commitment. Our charge is that the Bill will create an extra tier of government, more bureaucracy, more red tape, more tax, more spending, more politicians, more talk, more expensive headquarters buildings and, if Labour controls any of the assemblies, no doubt more cronyism and sleaze as well.
	The Minister must accept this amendment, because its words are not my words, but the words of the Labour party manifesto, copied into the amendment. The Labour party, when it was bidding for the job of government, said that there would be independent audit to ensure no additional public expenditure; now that it has the job, it should stick to its word; otherwise, the Minister must tell us how much additional public money and additional tax this whole edifice is going to cost us.
	Amendment No. 24 seeks to introduce a slightly more objective test to replace the utterly meaningless one in clause 1(4) of the Bill, which states:
	XThe first condition is that the Secretary of State has considered the level of interest in the region in the holding of such a referendum."
	What does Xconsidered the level of interest" mean? Does it mean that, in the time it takes his Jaguar to get from New Palace Yard back to his departmental office, the Secretary of State has had a think about it in the back of his car? This is no test at all. There is no requirement that the interest be substantial and no requirement even that that interest be determined as representing a certain level of support for the proposals. There could be a lot of opposition to the Bill, but it would be perverse indeed to use that as a ground for calling a referendum.

Mark Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be interest across a particular region, not just in a small area of it?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That issue, in a slightly different form, will be addressed by a subsequent amendment, and I am sure that he will have something to say about it.
	I suggest that it will be sensible to hold a referendum only if there is substantial support for elected regional assemblies, if that is what the Secretary of State has determined. I also suggest that, in practice, that is the political judgment that the Deputy Prime Minister will make, so let us include it in the Bill. It is hardly conceivable that he will consider the support in a region, determine that it is overwhelmingly hostile and then call a referendum. Instead of having woolly words that mean effectively nothing, let us get the Bill to say what is going to happen.
	Amendment No. 24 would require the Secretary of State to consider on the evidence available to him the probability of a certain level of support for a yes vote. However, the idea that some threshold of support for the proposal—the Minister for Local Government and the Regions prefers to call it a hurdle—has to exist before we enter into such wholesale constitutional restructuring caused angst in Standing Committee.
	Originally, I expressed that idea in amendments as a requirement for a minimum percentage turnout. The Minister, in fairness to him, pointed out that that would have perverse outcomes, as it would create an incentive for people opposed to the proposition to abstain. We listened to what he had to say, went away and reformulated the threshold concept around a percentage of the electorate recording a yes vote, which would not produce perverse incentives such as the one which he suggested.
	We have chosen 25 per cent. of the eligible electorate voting for the proposition, but that is contentious. Many of my hon. Friends will, I suspect, think it too low a threshold, but the Minister says that it is ridiculous to set any threshold at all. What is ridiculous is postulating a major constitutional change on the back of the support of a tiny fraction of the electorate. The burden must be on those who propose to change the status quo to show support for that change.

Jim Knight: I am interested in why the hon. Gentleman has chosen 25 per cent. I assume it is because he thinks that being unable to achieve 25 per cent. voting yes would mean no legitimacy on such an important constitutional matter. Given that President Bush got less than 25 per cent. of the votes of those of voting age in the United States presidential election—I have checked the facts—does he regard President Bush as having no legitimacy?

Philip Hammond: I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly why I have chosen 25 per cent. as a figure to put before the Committee. My elementary mathematics tells me that 25 per cent. represents a simple equality of half the electorate voting. He is trying to equate an advisory referendum with an election, and he well knows that we have already had that debate in Standing Committee. Interestingly, perhaps, the 25 per cent. threshold would have legitimised the Scottish and Welsh referendums, but not, by a small margin, the Greater London referendum.

David Borrow: The amendments are about the judgment that the Secretary of State would make of the support in a region for a referendum, but a subsequent amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman calls for an all-England referendum in which all regions would vote on the same day. If this proposal is accepted, I assume that he will withdraw the amendment on an all-England referendum?

Philip Hammond: I assure the hon. Gentleman that if the Minister rises to his feet to announce that he has suddenly seen the light and wants to accept amendment No. 46, I shall immediately go into a huddle with my hon. Friends. We may well want radically to change what we are putting before the Committee.

David Curry: My hon. Friend is something of a high-hurdler and I am a bit of a high-hurdler as well, but the Government are distinctly low-hurdlers. He will recall the threshold to trigger referendums on directly elected mayors and no doubt speculate as to the turnout in those elections and their unsatisfactory nature for the Labour party, particularly in the north-east.

Philip Hammond: My right hon. Friend astutely identifies an issue. The Minister's difficulty is that he does not like 25 per cent., but he has to agree—indeed, he has agreed—that, in principle, there needs to be a certain level of participation and a certain level of support for the proposition to be legitimised. However, he has so far successfully avoided putting a number on that, and he will not say whether a plurality of turnout of 10 or 20 per cent. would be enough to legitimise such a major constitutional change. I hope that we shall hear him speak on that subject this evening. Let him suggest the appropriate threshold for change.

George Howarth: Following the intervention of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), perhaps I should say that I was a high-jumper at school. I suspect that, after today, I will be for the high jump with my Whips. Amendment No. 24 says:
	Xon the basis of the evidence available . . . it is probable that at least twenty-five per cent. of the persons eligible to vote in a referendum . . . would vote in favour".
	How should that be judged?

Philip Hammond: Unfortunately, we are constrained by the Bill's architecture, as is the hon. Gentleman. That is a test that the Secretary of State would have to apply before calling a referendum. When we debate clause 2, the hon. Gentleman will see that we have sought to address a yes vote of less than 25 per cent. of the eligible electorate, whatever the Secretary of State's judgment in advance of a referendum. In fact, if the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I shall address that point now by referring to amendment No. 23, which is in this group. It deals with the test that the Deputy Prime Minister would have to apply before calling a referendum, but he would still be free to go ahead with creating an elected regional assembly if the turnout were very low—for example, if only 20 per cent. were achieved and 11 per cent. of the electorate voted yes.
	Sadly, owing to the nature of the Bill, there is no scope to introduce a test for setting up regional assemblies, so we have tabled this amendment, which would add to the preamble to the question a statement of intent from the Government. I do not often offer to draft such statements for them, but on this occasion I thought I would. That statement is that the Government would not intend to proceed if less than 25 per cent. voted yes.
	Some of my hon. Friends may think that I am naive to assume that the Government would feel bound in any way, shape or form just because they made a statement of intent. Consider their 1997 manifesto commitment and the litter of other broken pledges and failed targets that surround them. However, it is the best that I can do within the constraints of the Bill's architecture. I hope that it allows other Members to address the substantive issue.
	That brings me to amendments Nos. 9 and 10, which are offered in the alternative, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) would say in his lawyerly way in Standing Committee. If the Government reject amendments Nos. 46 and 24 and leave in place the absurd non-test of clause 1(4), which states that
	Xthe Secretary of State has considered the level of interest",
	without setting any parameters as to what he has concluded, amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would at least tighten the process of consideration. Subsections (6) and (7), which those amendments would delete and amend, say that the Secretary of State has considered the level of interest if he orders the referendum within two years of ordering a local government review.
	So provided that the Secretary of State made such an order within two years of setting off a local government review, he would be deemed to have carried out that consideration, whether he had done so or not. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would remove those paragraphs and require the Secretary of State, before ordering a review, always to consider the items specified in clause 1(8), namely,
	Xviews expressed and information and evidence provided to him",
	and
	Xsuch published material as he thinks appropriate."
	I would not have thought that that was a particularly onerous task for the Secretary of State, and it would make his judgment reviewable at least in theory, which his decision under subsection (4) almost certainly would not be.

David Clelland: I do not want to make a long speech. I merely want to get to the bottom of the Conservatives' motives. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said a few moments ago—I think I quote him accurately—XWe want to dispose of this matter appropriately". That, I believe, is what the Conservatives want to do: they want to dispose of the matter altogether. They probably think that a wholesale reorganisation of regional boundaries, if it happened, would take so long that a general election would be upon us which, in their own pathetic minds, they imagine they might have a chance of winning. While that is not impossible, of course, it is very unlikely.
	I see no need for a review of regional boundaries. As I said earlier, the current boundaries were drawn up by the last Conservative Government, who seemed to think them appropriate then.

Peter Luff: I would be entirely content for there to be a Government office for the west midlands for statistical and administrative purposes, but I would not be content with a severing of the link with Gloucestershire, which is important in the context of the Three Choirs Festival and the three counties showground. I would not be content to be run by Birmingham. Administration and government are very different. I wish the hon. Gentleman would understand that crucial distinction.

David Clelland: I think I understand it quite well. I was about to say that as far as I can see there is nothing to prevent any Government or Secretary of State from making proposals to change regional boundaries in the future. We are not drawing up boundaries for ever. Indeed, once we have regional government regions themselves may well suggest boundary changes, and there will be nothing to prevent such changes.

Desmond Swayne: The Minister said that it would take a year to review local government. The regions can be dealt with at the same time: that would certainly not take longer than a year. The process will not exactly be prolonged. Does it not make much more sense to sort out the boundaries before proceeding further? The hon. Gentleman's region contains perhaps 1.6 million people, and he may be content with his boundary, but the south-east is very much larger and shares no integument across its boundaries.

David Clelland: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's optimism. I think the process would take a great deal longer. I also think the Conservatives know fine well that their proposals would mean the end of regional government this side of a general election. That is what this is all about.

Andrew George: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that he may be expressing a self-interested view? I have made it clear that I am happy for the north-east to proceed as quickly as possible, but there is not a settled belief in many other so-called regions that the boundaries are acceptable. Whether there is a one-off wide-ranging review, or whether the north-east goes ahead and the Xdifficult" areas become a part of a separate review by the Secretary of State or the boundary commission, the issues need to be addressed; otherwise there will be no regional government in the bulk of England.

David Clelland: I think that if the Conservatives get their way and the Liberals are minded to support them, there will indeed be no regional assemblies. But if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I should declare an interest when defending what is best for my region, I plead guilty. I certainly believe that regional government would be good for the north-east.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) prayed in aid the director general of the CBI, who apparently said that businesses were not keen on the idea of regional government. The director general recently told the Deputy Prime Minister's Department that most businesses considered the planning control system to be a major burden on new business development. A later survey found, however, that most businesses ranked it 13th out of 15 in terms of importance. I do not think that the director general of the CBI necessarily always represents the views of his members.

Matthew Green: This is a very timid Bill, given that it establishes no more than a shell of regional government. One of the most disappointing aspects that emerged in the Standing Committee was the fact that the Government see it as a final settlement rather than a stepping stone to the devolving of real power from this place down to the regions. I must tell Labour Members who share our wish for such devolution that this will produce no more than a weak imitation, which is not intended to go any further.
	More worrying, so much is wrapped up in the Bill that it has itself reduced the chances of success in referendums. Certain elements of the Government—perhaps in No. 10—who do not want regional government may have had a hand in this, as under the Bill failure is almost certain in some if not most of the referendums. We want regional government and we want referendums to be won, although not with the boundaries proposed in the Bill.
	Our amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 34 seek to decouple local government reform from regional government, for a good reason. As I have said, we want referendums to be won. A single question linking the two issues will cause people to vote Xno", not because they do not want regional government but because they do not like the local government reform that is being foisted on them.
	Despite what was said by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), we like the principle of unitary authorities, but we do not think they should be imposed on local people from the centre. Local people should have a choice. It could be provided in one referendum or there could be a separate vote—various procedures are possible—but the decoupling is necessary.
	Let us take the example of a two-tier authority such as Worcestershire. If there were a referendum in the west midlands, most people in Worcestershire, who might not want local government change, could find themselves ruled out because the overwhelming majority of those in Coventry, Birmingham and West Bromwich can vote for local government change in Worcestershire. The people in Worcestershire could be overruled by those already in unitary authorities.

Jim Cousins: Does the hon. Gentleman not see that the toughness and definiteness of the choice that must be made between historic identification with a county and future identification with a region is precisely the answer to the trumped-up Conservative amendments?

Matthew Green: I will come to the amendments tabled by the Conservatives. There could have been grounds for our supporting them, but they have phrased them in such a way that they would not achieve what they set out to achieve.

Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman knows that I disagree on the question of regional government, but does he agree that the people of Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley and Wolverhampton face no tough choices, because they are already in unitary authorities? The tough choices are for the people of the counties of Worcestershire, Shropshire, Herefordshire and Warwickshire, but they can be overridden by the majority, who are already in unitary authorities. That is why the proposal is so profoundly undemocratic.

Matthew Green: Absolutely, and we can see similar situations throughout the country. We recognise that there is strong demand for a regional assembly in the north-east. People in Northumbria may not be particularly enthusiastic about local government change, yet it will be forced on them by a majority of people in Newcastle and elsewhere.

Jim Knight: Can the hon. Gentleman tell my constituents in Dorset how many representatives he thinks that they need? Many of them have a parish or town councillor, a district councillor, a county councillor, a Member of Parliament and seven members of the European Parliament. If we add in this extra layer of government without taking one away, they will have, through the regional chamber, a representative attached to the area in which they live, as well as the top-up members. That is ridiculous.

Matthew Green: What we are saying is that we should trust local people to be able to decide what they want. Local people will instinctively oppose having too many representatives, but why not trust them, rather than saying, XWe know what's best for everyone around the country, so we'll tell them"?On a more serious point, if we have proper regional devolution in England and some powers are taken away from this place, we ought to look at reducing the number of MPs. Lots of people have been banging on about jobs, but in that regard perhaps we should be focusing on this place, rather than on local councils.
	As I said, the purpose of our three amendments—we will seek a vote, if we may, on amendment No. 34—is to decouple the process of local government reform from that of regional government. It is not simply that we are worried about the effect on a regional government referendum; we are also concerned about the fact that one test is the level of interest, which the Minister must discover. In fact, we in Shropshire would like a unitary Shropshire. It consists of five districts and one county, and all the political parties are in agreement in wanting a unitary Shropshire. We do not want to have to wait for that for a long time, but at this rate the only way that we will get it is through a regional government referendum.
	The Minister has made it clear on numerous occasions that there is no other way that we are going to get a unitary Shropshire. However, if he judges that the level of interest in regional government across the west midlands does not justify a referendum, and he continues to do so for some years to come, we will never get local government reform in Shropshire. The decoupling process works in both directions. There are some areas that need local government reform, but which cannot wait for a regional government referendum; likewise, in other areas people would vote against regional government not because they oppose it, but because of the problems associated with local government reform.
	I want to touch on the two substantive Conservative amendments—Nos. 46 and 24—that, by their own admission, form the crux of this group. In theory, we have a lot of sympathy with elements of amendment No. 46, particularly that concerning regional boundaries. Although we like to tease the Conservatives that the boundaries for the current regions are theirs, if we are frank, the reality is that they established them for purposes other than for elected regional assemblies. As it happens, the boundaries that they drew up in the north-east probably do match the aspirations of the people there, but in many parts of the UK such boundaries do not. It is clear that this is an issue in Cornwall, and in Committee we touched on the question of the Isles of Scilly. One of the points of regional government is to bring local government closer to the people, but elements of local government control in those places would move from London—in some cases, from the Isles of Scilly or from Cornwall, because sadly, the principle works in both directions—to Bristol.
	I am not an expert in these matters, but I understand that by most transport links it takes an awful lot longer to get from the Isles of Scilly to Bristol than it takes to get to London. That would lead to a rather odd situation.

Jim Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way for a second time. I have two questions for him. First, why does he cite Bristol as the base for the south-west, given that it is highly possible that it would be Exeter, which is certainly much more straightforward for people from the Isles of Scilly to get to? Secondly, why does he seek to decouple the boundary reviews of local government, while supporting the coupling of reviews of regional boundaries? He wants to simplify matters for the elector by uncoupling, but now he seeks a coupling. That seems contradictory.

Matthew Green: I am slightly lost as to the meaning of the hon. Gentleman's second point. I mention Bristol only because the Government's administrative region for the south-west has its central offices there, and I believe that the quango regional assembly also meets there. I admit that another place could be chosen, but Bristol seems a reasonable assumption. However, before we get too excited about what the regions can or cannot choose to do, we should bear in mind that if the assemblies follow the terms of the Government's White Paper, they will not even be able to choose their own health advisers; they will have to accept the person that the Secretary of State appoints. Indeed, the regions may not even have the power to decide where the assemblies sit.

David Curry: Given that the assemblies will have so little power, why should they not just hire a charabanc and tour round the regions, saving us all the costs associated with the Scottish Parliament?

Matthew Green: The right hon. Gentleman makes his point well.
	In other regions, boundary issues may well arise. Frankly, in my own region the people of Shropshire, of Herefordshire and of Worcestershire do not feel that they are part of the west midlands; however, the people of the north-east probably do feel that they are part of the north-east region. In my view and the view of many in Shropshire, it would probably make a lot more sense for Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire, which share a common heritage, to be grouped together. Perhaps other people would say the same of their counties. My region consists of 1.7 million people, which is not that far off the population of the north-east. However, we cannot possibly consider such a grouping because the regional boundaries as laid down are sacrosanct.

Adrian Flook: Has the hon. Gentleman calculated how many regions England would consist of if his amalgamation of more local councils were replicated throughout the rest of the country?

Matthew Green: No, because I do not consider it not right for me to go round the country drawing lines on maps; however, the Government obviously think that they can do so. That is the point of having a review—we would not want to prescribe the total number of regions, or their size.
	We have heard that the south-east, with a population of 8 million, is the largest region judged by those terms, but I think that all of us accept that it is probably also the region with the least well-defined regional identity. Perhaps that is why enthusiasm for regional government appears to be lowest in the south-east.

Derek Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Matthew Green: I shall make some progress, if I may. Perhaps what the south-east needs is to be broken up into a couple of regions. That might make a lot more sense, and as a result some of people's objections—even, ultimately, of Conservative Members—would disappear.
	On the Conservatives' approach to this issue, amendment No. 46 wraps up with boundary reviews lots of other aspects that are perhaps undesirable. They are proceeding by way of reference to new clause 3—the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has touched on it—which we are not debating today. It is rather odd that the new clause should refer to the desirability that all regions be of approximately equal size. I am not entirely clear whether that means in terms of population or area. Population might be the more sensible of the two; we can think of plenty of reasons why authorities being the same size in terms of area might not make sense. For example, the south-west is relatively under-populated, whereas the metropolitan areas of the west midlands are densely populated. However, even if the proposal referred to population, we would struggle to get natural communities from it. One of the reasons why we are unable to support amendment no. 46 is that the Conservatives have gone about the matter in an undesirable way.

Nick Raynsford: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument with some interest and his most recent remarks with a certain amount of sympathy. Clearly he would like a major review of boundaries to be undertaken. Does he have a view on the minimum size that would make a region viable? Specifically, given the presence of his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) in the Chamber, would he consider Cornwall sufficiently large to be a viable region in its own right?

Matthew Green: That is exactly what a review would look at. [Interruption.] I do not have a view because I do not know a lot about Cornwall and its viability as a separate region. My hon. Friend would know a lot more about that.

Andrew George: Does my hon. Friend accept that the smallest size that a region could be is no smaller than the largest tier of local government? If we raise our eyes above the level of the parish and the often insular debate within the UK and look at the wider world, we see a variety of regions of different sizes in different countries that work perfectly well. Can we not accept that there are regions—and nations in some cases—in other parts of the world that have populations smaller than that of Cornwall?

Matthew Green: My hon. Friend makes his point exceedingly well and that is the sort of issue that we would want a review to look at. We believe that such a review could be concluded within about 12 months.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has attacked the phrasing of the new clause. Does he accept that the new clause would require the Electoral Commission to have regard to the desirability of all regions being of approximately equal size, as well as the need to reflect identities? According to the Bill's own language, that exact same requirement would be placed on the boundary committee. It is not an absolute requirement, but a question of Xhaving regard." In addition, we have already had this debate in Committee.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is muddling up regional government and local government. Even within local government, we see different sizes of unitary authority. Rutland is the smallest of the unitary authorities now. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Rutland should not be a unitary authority? People in Rutland should perhaps know of this new move from the Conservatives.
	Amendment No. 24 would put a threshold in the Bill, but I cannot see why the Conservatives are keen on having a threshold. Frankly, the only thing they are currently good at is going around the country stirring up apathy. Given that they are led by the quiet man, it is no surprise that they want to see as little activity as possible.
	The key point is that the referendums are indicative and not binding. The Minister—and, presumably, at least part of this House—must make a decision before a regional assembly is set up, as the Minister will probably confirm when he winds up.
	Setting a threshold of 25 per cent. voting in favour in a referendum is not putting a hurdle before the Minister; ultimately, it is putting a hurdle before the House's ability to decide things for itself. That is what I find strange about the amendment. The referendums are not the final say; they are indicative. Once again, we will not support the Conservatives on amendment No. 24. I only hope that when the Bill gets to another place, we might be able to find agreement on amendments on boundaries on which we can agree. It is a shame that the relevant amendments that we tabled were not selected.

Stephen Dorrell: I want to address my remarks—reasonably briefly, I hope—to amendment No. 46, which has been spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). The amendment deals directly with the principle of a pre-legislative referendum. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, just said that we did not need to worry because the referendums were merely indicative and advisory. He said that a yes vote in a region would come back to the House for a decision, and that would be the decisive moment.
	With respect, that ignores the effect of the political dynamic. If a referendum in a particular region resulted in a vote in favour of the establishment of an assembly, there would be a strong political dynamic to carry out the expressed wishes of the electorate of that region. It is for that reason, and because I recognise the power of such a referendum result, that it is important for the House to consider what it is being asked to agree to as a principle to be put before the electorate in one of the referendums envisaged by the Bill.

Andrew George: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that political dynamic or momentum would have any legitimacy—and that the Minister would give support—if the turnout were less than 10 per cent.?

Stephen Dorrell: I agree, which is why I support the introduction of some hurdle.
	It is hard to imagine a more fundamental question for the House to address before agreeing to the principle of holding a referendum than the provision of a proper answer to the question as to what should be the powers and functions of such an assembly were it to be established, whatever the boundaries. I find it difficult to engage in an argument about what the boundaries should be when we are still wholly ignorant of the structure of powers and functions that the electorate are being asked to envisage. I do not regard this as a pedantic piece of small print and I make no apology for asking the House to pause to consider which issues would have to be addressed in the context of a referendum debate.
	The services involved in the combination of the establishment of a regional assembly and consequent local government reorganisation—which, as the explanatory notes make clear, the Government regard as a precondition for allowing a referendum to go ahead—include the local education service, which makes up 60 per cent. of everything done by county councils in shire counties.
	The second most important area in the provision of local services in a two-tier authority is the social services department. Conceivably, by virtue of involving social services in the reform—and by virtue of what the Government have said about the probability of power being delegated away from central Government towards regional assemblies—the debate would have to involve the future structure of health provision in the regions as well. That is not to mention the delivery of transport services around the regions. Those are the four key areas on which domestic political debate concentrates—the delivery of education, health, social services and transport. All four services would be caught up in the reorganisation that would follow a yes vote in a referendum on the establishment of a regional assembly.
	The House is being asked to agree to a proposal that a precondition for any assembly referendum should be that the boundaries must be sorted out. However, no provision or recommendation has been made about the consequences of a yes vote for the delivery of the core public services that I have listed.
	The Government have made two potentially contradictory proposals about the consequences of reorganisation for those services. First, as I have noted already, the Government have said that more of the powers going to the regional assemblies would come from central Government than from the current tiers of local government. Secondly, it is clear that, in any area in which a referendum is held, there must be a parallel proposal for the establishment of a unitary authority.
	One Labour Member contended that that does not mean necessarily that county councils must be abolished, but it is hard to see how a unitary local government structure based on the principle that districts should be abolished and that power should be concentrated in counties could be delivered. That proposal is unlikely to command wide public support. We should not agree to allow referendums on establishing regional assemblies to go ahead without clear Government proposals about the consequences for delivery of the four core services that I listed earlier.

Jim Knight: I have some sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and those problems are touched on in the White Paper. I should like a draft Bill to be published in the next Session of Parliament, so that they could be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. Would the right hon. Gentleman support that as a happy compromise, or perhaps a middle way? I also want to respond to what he said about unitary counties. It would be perfectly reasonable to take a look at the current district structure of where I live in Dorset. The districts of Purbeck and of Weymouth and Portland are not viable, in terms of their size. People are more emotionally attached to the historic county of Dorset than to the districts, and services are run on that basis.

Stephen Dorrell: I do not want to get into an argument about what the focus of a proposed unitary structure should be. I want to pitch my tent firmly on the territory that the Government should be clear about what they are proposing before they ask people to vote. The hon. Gentleman suggests that a draft Bill should come before the House before the referendum programme begins. I should be the first to agree with that proposition, which represents a huge step forward. However, the House must take seriously its function of probing the Government's proposals, calling the Government to account and setting down the terms under which this huge proposed reorganisation of the structure of local government should be allowed to go ahead. Hon. Members must not simply hope, as the hon. Gentleman does, that the Government might—out of the goodness of their heart and if it fits in with the timetable of the parliamentary draftsmen—introduce a draft Bill before a referendum is held.
	The referendums will be about the reorganisation of the delivery of core public services. Before any are held, the House must have the opportunity to tease out the practical implications of a yes vote for the delivery of the education service and for the links between social services and the national health service. Will there be a greater democratic involvement in the delivery of the NHS, and would that be consistent with the principles of the NHS as it has developed over the past 50 years? Those fundamental questions go to the heart of the delivery of public services in Britain. They are not mere details to be covered in the footnotes of a Bill apparently more interested in regional government boundaries than in the delivery of those core services to electors.

Derek Foster: I detect some confusion about the architecture of what is being proposed. The proposed regional assemblies will be strategic and slimline authorities. I understand that a reorganisation of local government would have deep implications for the delivery of education services, but the regional assemblies will be slimline and strategic. The matters with which they will deal are already being discussed by one configuration of regional authority or another, and the proposal means only that that discussion will have a democratic dimension.

Stephen Dorrell: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman is focusing on the proposed slimline regional assembly. I recognise the rhetoric, but I doubt that matters would turn out that way in reality. Will he set out the implications for unitary local government in the area where a slimline regional assembly is to be established? The Government insist that those implications should be thought through before a referendum is held. If slimline regional assemblies as he envisaged are set up, the delivery of local government services such as education, social services, transport and, possibly, health would have to be fundamentally reorganised.
	My contention is that we need to see the detail of that reorganisation before we agree to allow the referendums to be held.

Robert Key: As do the people.

Stephen Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to say that that is what the people want as well. More importantly, we need to allow time for the complexities to be worked through. Any such reorganisation would involve institutions that have grown up over a long period. If we act in haste to reorganise local government, we will have plenty of years to repent at leisure, as we have learned to our cost.

Jim Knight: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. Will not the boundary committee look at the strategic functions in a local government reorganisation? The unitary proposal would be made clear to electors when they cast their ballots about a regional assembly. The democratic choice would be offered to electors.

Stephen Dorrell: With great respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend is right.

Stephen Dorrell: The Minister says that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) is right. Is the Minister endorsing the hon. Gentleman's version? I do not need to give way to the Minister, which will be a relief to those of my hon. Friends who want to contribute to the debate. However, the suggestion does not answer the point, because the complexity of public service delivery must be thought out in detail. It is not good enough for the boundary committee merely to propose on the back of an envelope an outline scheme about how education will be delivered after the reorganisation.
	If the House were being asked to consider the reorganisation of the schools service separately, no one would argue with the proposition that the normal way of doing that was for the Government to present proposals, publish a Green Paper and a White Paper and go through a legislative process. Yet we are proposing to do that for social services, transport and conceivably the health service as well, all spatchcocked up into the same piece of legislation to be dealt with by the boundary committee. I do not think that that is a sensible way of dealing with core public services.
	I focused on the implications for those services from an organisational, managerial point of view. They are complex services and I am concerned that if we do it this way, institutions that have developed for good reasons will be changed without proper consideration. There is another reason why I am concerned about abolishing existing institutions and seeking to put in place a regional assembly as the new apex for political accountability for those services on the basis of a single, insufficiently informed referendum. If we are honest about what our constituents are saying, we know that there is already a problem in health and education. People do not really know who is responsible for the core services; they are already too far divorced from political accountability.
	The political accountability of all the services that I have identified is already too diffuse within the bureaucracy. We should seek to make political accountability for those services clearer so that people know who is responsible for delivery and hold them to account. I fear that if we set out to deliver that by abolishing tiers of local government in respect of which there is a sense of local community and a local political process and replacing them with regions so that my constituents in Leicestershire are asked to go into an east midlands region where there is no sense of local regional community, that will lead to a further divorce between voters and the people responsible for the core public services. Not only will those public services be less efficient, they will be less accountable. If we manage to take those two tricks together, we shall do a huge disservice to democracy.
	I do not regard the Bill as simply a minor party political quibble but as a major threat to good and accountable governance. As I said earlier, I think that it is inappropriate—a massively inadequate word—for us to address these issues in a debate lasting two and a half hours under a guillotine.

George Howarth: I seek your indulgence, Sir Michael, and hope that you will allow me to spend a few moments explaining my position on the Bill. It will then be more obvious why I will be supporting—or not—the various amendments to it.
	I abstained when the House voted on the Bill's Second Reading. I thought long and hard about it. I certainly did not mention anything to do with regional government in my election material—in fact, I was careful not to do so. However, I accept that my party manifesto contained a commitment to regional government and I thought that the wisest course of action on Second Reading was to absent myself and not to oppose the Bill.
	I have objections to the Bill in principle. I respect my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, whose views on this are long held. Indeed, I have opposed his view for an equally long time. I believe that the Bill is like sleepwalking piecemeal into constitutional change, the long-term consequences of which we have not fully worked out. However, the Bill has had its Second Reading, and from here on in, my approach is to consider the amendments proposed to it, see what it looks like on Third Reading and make an appropriate decision then.
	I have genuinely tried to see whether there is any scope for me to support the Opposition's amendments. I listened to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) carefully, and I hope that he accepts that my interventions were not debating points but a genuine attempt to find out what was behind his thinking. Amendment No. 46 is the key amendment in the group. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are very sensible, and if the amendment had confined itself to a review of the boundaries and setting out the powers and functions of elected regional assemblies, I would have been minded to support it. I listened carefully to what he said about paragraphs (c) and (d). I am sure that it is not intentional, but if the amendment were accepted, paragraphs (c) and (d) would effectively turn it into a wrecking amendment. They would set unrealistic targets and I do not believe that a Bill that has had its Second Reading should include such draconian targets.

Philip Hammond: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the target of no additional public expenditure, which was a Labour party manifesto commitment in 1997, is unrealistic?

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there would be bound to be differences of opinion as to what such an audit was measuring. What was included in an audit could be a cause of continuous and protracted argument. I am not opposed to gauging the opinion of the business community—that should happen regularly and frequently—but why single out business when other sections of the community should be consulted?

Jim Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservatives' new clause 3(2) describes the relevant interests that the Secretary of State should consult as professional bodies, trade unions, voluntary organisations, faith groups, political parties, business organisations and community organisations? They have already thought of a perfectly adequate way of describing the people whom the Government should consult but they choose to pick exclusively on the business community.

George Howarth: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's presumption that I had not bothered to read new clause 3. If he will forgive me, I will discuss that when we come to it, and confine my remarks to the amendments before us.
	I would be happy to support paragraph (a) of amendment No. 46, and this is the core of the position that I hold. A proposed regional assembly for the north-west would be almost meaningless in that the north-west exists purely as a point on the compass. I am proud to represent a Merseyside constituency that contains parts of two unitary authorities, Knowsley and Sefton. Although people may from time to time take issue with something that either Knowsley or Sefton does, those unitary authorities work perfectly well. I know that the Bill does not propose to take any powers away from either of them, but some remote other layer of government would not service Knowsley or Sefton particularly well, if at all.

David Clelland: I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend is opposed to regional government in principle or because it does not suit his area. The Bill is not about setting up regional government but a referendum. I assume that he has respect for his electors, so why does he not have enough respect to allow them to decide for themselves?

George Howarth: Had my hon. Friend allowed me to develop my argument further, he would have understood my position better. To repeat my earlier point, although my instinct is against the whole process in principle, the Bill has received its Second Reading, so I want, over time, to achieve an accommodation that would allow my constituents to feel comfortable in a region other than something called Xthe north-west". That is the point that I was trying to develop.
	My objective is to find out whether it would be possible, through the processes proposed in the Bill, to end up with a greater Merseyside authority that would have responsibility for some—if not all—of the powers set out in the White Paper. Such an authority would work more effectively for my constituents and would make more natural sense. I note that my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) are listening attentively to the debate. Although my hon. Friends are better able than me to speak for their constituents, such a proposal might suit Manchester and Lancashire better, too. I do not presume to speak for Cheshire, as no Cheshire Member is in the Chamber, but I am sure that they will be here in due course.
	The Opposition amendment does not quite fit into the argument that I have developed, so I do not feel able to support it. I intervened on the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge in relation to amendment No. 24, which is not at all suitable because its basis for gauging opinion is unspecified. It would provide for an open-ended process whereby everyone's opinion would have to be taken into account. That would be okay in some ways, but it offers the prospect of protracted argument about the weight to be given to public opinion at any one time and it would not make sense. I realise that he was constrained by what he described as the architecture of the Bill, nevertheless the amendment would not be sensible at this stage. In any case, I am informed that we will not be able to vote on it separately so it would only be vexatious to argue about it.
	I am not inclined to support the Opposition on this occasion. However, as I said earlier, I am inclined to support one of their amendments to clause 3 and, if I get the opportunity to catch the eye of the Chairman when we debate it, I shall explain why.

David Curry: I, too, want to address myself to amendment No. 46 and to the Liberal Democrat amendments.
	The only difference the measure will make to my constituents is to reorganise their local government. The regional assembly will not make the blindest bit of difference to the overwhelming part of the lives of the overwhelming number of my constituents. Its powers are wholly unspecified. The powers spelled out in the consultation document somewhat optimistically entitled XYour Region, Your Choice" are entirely advisory. They are all about strategic purposes—advising about this or consulting on that—but what can the assembly actually do? The answer is practically nothing.
	What matters to my constituents is the one thing that will have an immediate impact on their lives: local government reorganisation. The White Paper may talk of XYour Region, Your Choice", but it would offer neither to my constituents or me. North Yorkshire is part of an area where every other council is already a metropolitan, unitary authority; we are the only part of the region that still has a two-tier structure, and the only part with a predominantly rural character. The sources of employment are mainly the tourism and catering businesses, the public service and small manufacturing. We are very different from the rest of the area.

Gary Streeter: May I emphasise my right hon. Friend's point about the lack of powers for regional assemblies? Is he aware that when we gave our first example of that in the Standing Committee, the Bill fell at that first hurdle? The White Paper stated that transport should be one of the strategic functions of regional assemblies, yet a decision about a bypass in a region would be made not by its assembly but by the Government.

David Curry: My hon. Friend makes a very effective point. Almost 90 per cent. of the electorate who will decide whether we in North Yorkshire are to have a change in our local government structure will have nothing whatever at stake because they already have unitary authorities. Their vote will change nothing in the practical details of their daily life, but the change will be significant for my constituents—for the very reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell).

David Clelland: The right hon. Gentleman says that his constituents will not have a choice, but they will have a vote. I understand the point that he makes about the weighting, but where was he when the Conservative Government abolished metropolitan county councils? Where was he when the Conservatives abolished the Greater London Council and Cleveland county council? What choices were people given then?

David Curry: I lay claim to the authorship of the abolition of Cleveland and Humberside—and I am delighted to do so. My argument is not about whether unitary councils are good or bad; on the whole, I have some sympathy for unitary local government. My argument is about who should take the decisions. Decisions on unitary authorities were taken by the House. Orders were passed in this place. However, the Bill proposes a referendum process in which people who may have no interest in the matter, who do not represent anybody else and who have not been elected will take decisions for my constituents.
	Important issues will be involved. Health and social services are probably the most important of all. As we know, the Government are constructing a whole new architecture to manage them and, as the Minister will know, North Yorkshire has experienced chronic underfunding in those sectors.

Nick Raynsford: Just as the abolition of Cleveland was effected by the House so, too, any proposal arising from a referendum will be effected through the House by the Secretary of State. There is no difference whatever from what the Conservatives did when they were in government.

David Curry: Of course there is a difference: it is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood spelled out. There will be what the French call a "présomption préalable"; in other words, a preliminary question will have been put. There will have been a referendum that will set a process—a motion—in train. The Minister says that if there is a positive vote in the referendum, he can decide that he will not pursue that course of action. That is radically different to the circumstances that obtained at the time when we created unitary government. That is my first concern.
	My second concern is about the sampling process that will relate to a regional assembly whose powers we know not. That is the closest thing to XBlind Date" that has ever been attempted in politics. We do not know what powers the assemblies will have. The White Paper was extremely circumspect. Whenever someone mentions strategic powers, one should reach for one's gun because we know that they cannot work out exactly what such powers should be.
	Whom will the Government sample? I suppose they will sample the chambers of commerce and no doubt the faith groups, as we must now call them—perhaps even the Women's Institutes, although that be rather dangerous. The Government might sample the constitutional conventions, which are self-appointed, and perhaps the Soroptimists and the Rotary clubs. Will we be inviting people to make non-submissions if they do not have a view?
	What about the person described colloquially as Xthe punter"? We constantly talk about consultation and the Government are always calling for great public debates about things. It is always daft for Governments to do that: sensible Governments do not want great public debates because they know that such debates will be dominated by self-interested organisations and NGOs.
	What about the punter coming back from St. James's park after watching Newcastle United do rather well this season? At least, the team has been doing well until now—sadly, it looks as though it might soon be exiting from the European cup. What about the punter at the optimistically named stadium of light where Sunderland plays? Sunderland is fourth or fifth from the bottom and may be struggling for survival in the premiership, Mr. Butterfill—I know that you follow such things closely, even from your base on the south coast.
	Will those punters be asked what they think they have at stake? The problem is that they will be asked about something in which they have no stake, because nothing is at stake yet: there are no powers. This is a proposal for a referendum on an assembly whose powers we do not know, followed by an invitation to people to vote for elected members to an assembly whose powers they probably cannot define. That is a recipe for an extremely low turnout, and we are all agonising about that now.
	My final point relates to regional identity. I hope that we shall not get ourselves caught in the arguments about that. We have great arguments about identity, usually in relation to Europe. Identity and organisation do not go together and are not the same thing. It is a mistake to assume that people identify with some sort of geographical construction. In fact, many people in the regions are much more interested in differentiating themselves than identifying themselves with one another. My constituents in Craven do not need to differentiate themselves from London, because they are different from London—but by golly they want to differentiate themselves from Bradford, for reasons that I will not explain in any detail tonight.
	I draw the Minister's attention to what I might call the postcode wars. He represents a constituency on the edge of London, but those of my constituents who are in the southern part of North Yorkshire have a Leeds postcode. That is tantamount to a declaration of nuclear war. Some people in Bentham in the north-west of my constituency have a Lancaster postcode. That is worse, if one can envisage such a thing. It might be suggested that such things are perfectly logical, but people identify themselves not in that way, but on a much more local basis. They may well broadly describe themselves as coming from Yorkshire, but they are probably thinking of a concept of Yorkshire produced in a previous reorganisation—or even the reorganisation before that—when they say it.
	So let us not pretend that people will vote on the basis of regional identities, even in the north-east. My whole family comes from Durham, Northumberland and Teesside, and the notion of the north-east identity is no more coherent than that of the Yorkshire identity. People identify themselves with much more local areas, so I hope that we will not let ourselves be diverted down that route.
	I hope that the Minister will say that there is no reason whatever why a two-tier system could not persist in an area such as North Yorkshire, even if there were a regional assembly. If the regional assembly has as few powers and is as light—XGovernment Lite"—as he says, I can see no reason why we should go to all the hullabaloo of regional reorganisation, which removes accountability and prevents people from being relatively close to their local councillors, simply to elect people who represent 350,000 people, topped up with a drop of proportional representation.
	I can see no way in which that will develop accountability or promote the economy, given that the gap between regional performance has increased since the now Minister for Sport said that the regional development agencies would have failed if they did not close the gap in regional performance. So the two great claims for the proposals will simply not be delivered.

Nick Raynsford: As the right hon. Gentleman suggests that no reorganisation should proceed, will he tell the House whether he regrets his role in the Banham process?

David Curry: No, I do not. I brought a great deal of sense to the Banham process, if I may say so.
	I have explained the differences in the constitutional procedures, but there is only one thing that tempts me to vote for the proposal: the possibility of touring the south-west, urging everyone to vote yes, so that the Minister has a major local government reorganisation on his hands throughout that area. I would find that a wonderfully entertaining spectacle. Having got the tee-shirt, I would lend it to him with enormous enthusiasm, and it would come back with just as many holes having been made in it as when I wore it myself. I do not regret that, but I believe that there are more urgent pressing issues.
	As I said on Second Reading, intellectual arguments can be made for devolution. I have never said that the whole idea is absurd. I have said that this proposal simply is not worth the candle, and the downside is significantly greater than any conceivable benefit that people may derive from it. Five or six years down the road, if my constituents are asked what the regional assembly has done for them, they will say, XWhat?"

David Borrow: In view of the number of other hon. Members who wish take part in this important debate, I shall only speak for a few minutes.
	I wish to speak initially to amendment No. 46. I have considerable sympathy with paragraph (b), which refers to the need for the people in any region to know what they would get if they voted yes in a referendum before doing so. I shall repeat the point that I made on Second Reading, and I will continue to make it. Referendums will be successful only if the powers of the regional assemblies are clearly specified in Bills before they take place. Such Bills may not need to receive Royal Assent before the referendums are held, but draft Bills will be needed at the very minimum.
	The White Paper, which is all we have at the moment, is incomplete, so it is absolutely essential for Members of Parliament to have the opportunity to debate the powers outlined in the White Paper, to discuss them in detail and to firm them up before the referendums are held. The proposed powers are fundamentally flawed in many ways, and I would find it very difficult to agree that everything in the White Paper would set up the sort of regional assemblies that I would wish to see set up.
	I repeat to my right hon. Friend the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues that we will return time and again to that issue. We need clear evidence about what will happen if people vote in favour of regional government in a referendum, and at the moment we do not have that evidence.
	Amendment No. 24, which says that the Deputy Prime Minister should reach the view that at least 25 per cent. of a region's electorate want to vote in favour of regional government, is totally superfluous. If an opinion poll in the north-west produced a figure of 26 per cent. and the Deputy Prime Minister said that it formed part of the evidence for a referendum, he would be very foolish.
	The opinion poll evidence produced by the BBC in March this year showed that the minimum amount of support for regional government in the south-east was 49 per cent, so amendment No. 24 is totally meaningless. Before putting any region through a referendum, the Deputy Prime Minister needs to form a proper judgment, using all the evidence, to show that a majority of people favour regional government.

Philip Hammond: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misinterprets amendment No. 24. It would require that 25 per cent. of the total electorate, rather than 25 per cent. of those who voted, were expected to be in favour.

David Borrow: The hon. Gentleman failed in his speech to clarify how that 25 per cent. could be arrived at. How would we judge whether 25 per cent. of the electorate are in favour of regional government, apart from conducting a referendum, which is what we want anyway, or an opinion poll? The opinion polls that have taken place have shown that more than 25 per cent. of the electorate in every region of the United Kingdom are in favour of regional government. That in itself is not enough for the Deputy Prime Minister to call a referendum, so amendment No. 24 is unnecessary and we should not be tied to the idea of a threshold. We could discuss the arguments about thresholds—I do not happen to agree with them—but amendment No. 24 is totally meaningless.
	I am also concerned about the business community showing substantial support before referendums are held. I would like to think that there was substantial support in the business community in my region before a referendum was held in the north-west. However, if there was clear support in the north-west for a referendum and in favour of regional government, I would not want the business community to have a veto because of a lack of substantial—whatever Xsubstantial" means—support for regional government.
	In October, a few other Lancashire MPs and I met our local chamber of commerce to discuss the implications for business of regional government. It made the point that it wanted some input into regional government, and felt that it should have some say in whether there was regional government, or some membership in terms of a regional assembly. But democracy works on the basis of one elector, one vote, and businesses do not have votes and blocking powers to stop the electorate reaching the decision, so I do not really understand why the proposal has been included unless its purpose is to seek to obstruct the views of the electorate and to stop them getting what they want.

Andrew Lansley: As far as that proposal is concerned, if regional economic development is isolated in the question for a referendum proposed by the Government as one of the principal functions of a regional assembly and the largest element of its proposed budget—in practice, the only power that we can identify is the power to appoint members of the regional development agency and to instruct them as to the economic strategy—does it not make sense that the business community should be supportive of that move?

David Borrow: There is a lot to be said for the business community of a region being in favour of and supportive of a regional assembly. We should not, however, deny the people in a region the possibility of a regional assembly because there is not overwhelming support from the business community. To give one section of the community a veto over the rest of community, which, in effect, is what the proposal does, is not what we would want in a democracy.
	The only other issue on which I want to touch briefly is local government reorganisation. I have some sympathy with people who argue that local government reorganisation should be decoupled from this process. I recognise, however, that if we had a referendum in my region, and we still had the possibility of an ongoing two-tier local government system, the opponents of regional government would use the fact that there were two tiers of local government as a strong argument against regional government. As politicians, we must make a judgment on the balance of good and bad. I am strongly in favour of unitary local government. What is happening now, however, is that the possibility of local government reorganisation is bringing strong opposition from those vested interests in the county councils that may support regional government in theory but are more concerned at the moment about losing the institutions to which they belong.

Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman also accept that by linking change in local government to regional referendums, and ruling out change occurring separately, we will be preventing places such as Shropshire, which want unitary authorities, from having them until a regional referendum takes place? That is what the Minister said.

David Borrow: Lancashire suffered the botched local government reorganisation of the early 1990s, when two of its largest towns, Blackburn and Blackpool, went unitary, but it is nonsense to say that there is strong support for the existing two-tier system in Lancashire. The institution of Lancashire county council, which had previously always strongly supported the concept of regional government, under the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), is now showing signs of objecting to regional government. I am sure that much of the reason for that is that it sees an end to its existence, and those who are members of, officers of or close to an institution will always seek to defend it.
	The same support does not exist across the county of Lancashire for Lancashire county council as an institution. For instance, Preston, where I live, was previously a county borough and was not part of a two-tier Lancashire county council system prior to 1973. Parts of the existing county of Lancashire were in the old county of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The idea that people have an overwhelming desire to be part of a county and for the county council structure to continue is therefore nonsense. People have a strong affinity with the area in which they live and with the county in which they live. Such loyalty is not affected by whether a county council exists.

DEFERRED DIVISION

John Butterfill: I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day.
	On the motion on section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Ayes were 275, the Noes were 153, so the motion was agreed to.
	[The Division List is published at the end of today's debate.]

Robert Key: If I have understood the Government's motive correctly in introducing this Bill and their regional government proposals to the House, it is to improve the machinery of Government and the delivery of services, to bring them closer to the people, and to improve accountability. I agree with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), and I shall seek to explain why I fear that the Government's ambitions will be frustrated by local people who will be able to cast their votes.
	The game was given away by the publication earlier this month by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of the handbook on the soundings exercise, paragraph 24 of which points out:
	XThe Secretary of State will be taking account of a very wide range of views, information and evidence in reaching his decision. It is not practicable to set a 'pass mark' above which a region would automatically hold a referendum and below which it automatically would not. In some cases the Secretary of State may have to balance several factors. Ultimately, these must be matters for the Secretary of State's judgement."
	Paragraph 25 states:
	XThese soundings are initially to inform the Secretary of State's decision".
	It does not therefore really matter whether people vote yes or no—the Secretary of State will make up his mind anyway depending on factors that he will not tell us about. That is one of my real problems with the Bill.
	I do not believe that the Bill is a European Union conspiracy, as the United Kingdom Independence party believes—it recently held demonstrations at the south-west constitutional convention and told us that we were quislings for even daring to discuss the issue, even though some of us are opposed to the concept. Nor do I think that the cuddly image of accountability will work in the future. The real argument is about whether we are addressing a democratic deficit or voter fatigue. I believe that it is voter fatigue. My hon. Friends have already explained clearly that the Bill provides no new policy making, no new powers, no new money—apart from perhaps some more council tax—and no economic and social partners in the future, which we at least have now.
	My principal objection, however, is that people will not vote for the proposals in a referendum if they do not identify with the region. That is the basic point. As far as my area is concerned, the south-west region does not exist. The fact is that the economic planning regions of the United Kingdom date back to the second world war when lines were drawn on maps for the better delivery of wartime administration. That grew during the socialist years of the 1960s when the economic planning regions were developed, and we got stuck with those lines on maps—that is all that they ever were.
	Cornwall, for example, could certainly have its own identity in relation to a regional assembly, as it has a very real identity. In Salisbury, my part of the world, we do not consider ourselves to have very much in common with Gloucester or the Isles of Scilly, because we are Wessex, and we always have been. Bristol is a city state, and Gloucestershire is in the west midlands as far as I am concerned.

Andrew George: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Tory amendment in relation to new clause 3 simply proposes to replace sanitised, bureaucratic, convenient regions with standardised regions of a different nature?

Robert Key: Let us discuss that when we debate new clause 3. I promised to be brief so that the Minister can wind up, but it was a perfectly reasonable point.
	Unless there is an identifiable region that has legitimacy, the proposal will not work and people will not vote for it. It should not be imposed on them. The counties have legitimacy because they represent the geography, geology, dialect, buildings, architecture, customs and practice, heritage and traditions of a distinct part of our nation. Local government is built on the rock of national identity. In Wiltshire, we call ourselves moonrakers, because of particular events in our history. All that still means something to people today.
	I know that modern culture homogenises our nation and that television, in particular, homogenises the western world. However, most of us are busy seeking roots, particularly when the going gets tough and things go wrong. The Government are making a grave mistake in suggesting that we should be forced into a completely phoney and meaningless local government system. The south-west region is a line drawn on a map. Regional government will simply be a castle in the sand that will be swept away by the tide of history.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Gary Streeter: On a point of order, Mr. Butterfill. Can you advise me as a Back Bencher on how I might proceed? Several Members on both sides of the Chamber rose to speak, and I want to make what I believe to be important points about this group of amendments. However, because of the timetable motion from which we are suffering, I will not be able to make those points. How can I challenge legislation introduced by the Government when they show such contempt for Parliament?

John Butterfill: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a matter for me. The orders of the House clearly prescribe the timetable for this Bill, and I am obliged to conform to them.

Nick Raynsford: We have had an interesting debate around a diverse range of amendments. Many separate issues have come up, including the definition of boundaries, the powers of elected regional assemblies, the reorganisation of local government, the principle of devolution, the extent to which people have absolute clarity when they come to vote in referendums and the importance of choice. I will try to tackle each of those issues while rightly focusing on the amendments before us.
	I will start with amendment No. 46, which is the most substantive of the Opposition's amendments. It would insert a new subsection (3) in clause 1, replacing subsections (3) to (8). The new subsection 3(a) would refer to the procedure for determining regional boundaries. It would require that the review of boundaries be undertaken before any order for a referendum could be made. The regions, for the purposes of the Bill, would no longer be those specified in schedule 1 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. Rather a region would become one created by order under new clause 3, but the apparent intention is to exclude Greater London because clause 26 would be retained in the Bill.
	That obviously creates a problem for the Opposition. They are arguing for consistency between the number of people in each of the regions. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made a strong point of that in his speech after conceding that the north-east probably was a natural region with a sense of identity and that it probably had an aspiration for regional devolution. If that is so, I ask him how he would achieve the numerical parity that he seeks—let us note that the population of the north-east is 2.5 million whereas that of London is 7.1 million—without a revision of the London boundaries.

Philip Hammond: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is going to respond to that point.

Philip Hammond: I will not address the London issue but, as the Minister knows, new clause 3 says that the commission would have regard to the desirability of the regions being approximately equal. It would also have regard to the need to reflect identities and interests. As we recognised in Standing Committee, there are tensions and there will not be an easy solution, but both factors must be taken into account.

Nick Raynsford: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is moving away from the preoccupation with numerical parity. That is the argument that he pushed in Standing Committee and in this debate. When he was challenged on that point by Liberal Democrat Members, he stuck firmly to that line. However, I am glad that wisdom is beginning to prevail and that he recognises that regional identity will involve regions of a very different size. One cannot have a one-size-fits-all simple arithmetic formula.

Andrew George: The Minister accepts that one size does not fit all. As he will acknowledge, one region has expressed a greater desire for a regional assembly in the responses that he has received to the consultation exercise. That region is Cornwall, so why have the Government set their face against an assembly for Cornwall? He is denying an assembly to the one region that wants it.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has not yet persuaded those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench to agree that Cornwall is a viable region. His party's spokesman was cautious and guarded on that point when I specifically asked him the question. We have debated the issue with the hon. Gentleman and I have much respect and understanding for the aspirations of the people of Cornwall and for their cultural identity. As he knows, I have recently agreed to recognise the Cornish language, and that is one part of the process. However, we believe that Cornwall is too small an area to be viable as a region with regional powers. That takes us straight to the fundamental point that regions have different functions to counties and districts, which are the traditional local government structures that can best address local issues. The hon. Gentleman may not agree with me, but that is the Government's view.
	A key aim of elected regional assemblies is to bring under democratic control the work of existing regional bodies. Who would believe from what we heard from the Conservative Opposition that they set up the existing regional structures—the Government offices for the regions—a decade ago and that they are perfectly happy for them to continue? The Government offices are unaccountable and unresponsive to local opinion. They simply answer to Ministers here in Westminster. That is the Conservatives' position; they are opposed to devolution.

Philip Hammond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Raynsford: No, I have very little time. I have given way twice already, so I must press ahead.
	The Conservatives oppose devolution and giving people in the English regions the opportunity to govern their own affairs. That is the main charge that I lay against the Conservative Opposition. Our aim is that regional assemblies should be strategic. We want to ensure that the spatial and demographic size of the regions is sufficient to enable them adequately to perform such a role.
	The provisions of amendment No. 46 would mean that the Act setting out the powers and functions of elected regional assemblies would have to be in place before a referendum could take place. I hear the argument about clarity and about the importance of people being aware of what they are voting for before they vote in a referendum. We agree entirely on that. That is why we are holding the structural review of local government in those regions where there is an interest. That review will be decided and the Government will make their decision as to whether to carry it forward before people vote in a referendum.
	The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) made great play of this issue. He described the process slightly pejoratively as the boundary committee doing calculations on the back of an envelope. It will not be like that. He was a senior Minister in the Government who introduced the 1992 legislation that established the principle of structural reviews, so he will know that they examine the structure of local government and not just the boundaries. The reviews will have a responsibility to produce a wholly unitary structure, determining exactly how the responsibilities that he described will be discharged. That information will be available to people in the regions before they vote, as will a statement from the Government, based on our White Paper, setting out what powers the elected regional assembly would have.
	The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said that the whole process was worthless because it contained no powers. He was a former housing Minister, so he will be aware of the housing capital allocations made to registered social landlords and local authorities. Those powers will rest with the elected regional assemblies. Is that worthless? The right hon. Gentleman very much underestimates the measure's significance.

David Clelland: My right hon. Friend mentioned the powers. He will recall that I asked my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister a few weeks ago about the suitability of a draft Bill for the regional government legislation. Labour Members have made that point twice in the debate. Does he not think that, in view of the new systems of examining legislation, a draft Bill would be appropriate in this case?

Nick Raynsford: We said that that is not ruled out and we will certainly consider it. Indeed, it may be one way to provide the extra clarity that some hon. Members want. Clarification will, of course, be provided in the White Paper, the boundary committee's structural review and the Government's statement before electors vote. It is possible that we will also choose to adopt a Bill that receives pre-legislative scrutiny.

Stephen Dorrell: The Minister clearly has sympathy for the proposition put by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). Will he consider that, with a view to making such a commitment, and give the House a firm decision on Report?

Nick Raynsford: We are prepared to consider that, but I do not want to be committed to a timetable. As a former senior member of a Government, the right hon. Gentleman knows about the constraint of legislative programmes.

Stephen Dorrell: rose—

Nick Raynsford: No, I will not give way. I have little time left.
	Amendment No. 46(3)(c) states that the Secretary of State would have to be satisfied
	Xthat there is substantial support from the business community"
	before holding a referendum. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made a specious argument about why business was not represented. People might not necessarily live within the local authority from which they run a business, but I do not think that many of them will not live in the same region as their business. So they will be entitled to vote and will have every opportunity to express their view.
	We want business to engage with elected regional assemblies. We said that in the White Paper and have specifically consulted on ways in which stakeholders can become involved in the work of the elected regional assemblies. The hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the CBI this evening, but he was much less enthusiastic about it in Committee when he said:
	XThe CBI is looking at these matters from the narrow perspective of business . . . it cannot be a conclusive perspective in constitutional matters."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 December 2002; c. 30.]
	That was his view a fortnight ago and I am surprised that he is taking a totally different approach today. Perhaps that is indicative of the Conservative party, however. Consistency is not one of its great virtues at the moment.
	The Liberal Democrats tabled amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36, which are consistent with their overall approach to have intensive consultation, reviews, discussions and talking shops—in fact, anything but action. I am afraid that the consequences of those amendments would be to delay the process of establishing elected regional assemblies to which they say they are committed. That would be a complete nonsense because we would have a protracted period of debate and discussion with no action. We have no hesitation in urging the House not to support those amendments.
	Amendment No. 24 would replace the condition in clause 1(4) requiring the Secretary of State to consider the level of interest in holding a referendum with something entirely different. Instead, it would require the Secretary of State to conclude
	Xon the basis of the evidence available that it is probable that at least twenty-five per cent. of the persons eligible to vote in a referendum . . . would vote in favour of an elected regional assembly".
	But that would mean the Secretary of State looking into a crystal ball and predicting the outcome of a referendum. It is a pretty novel approach to the democratic process. It is also totally impractical because people in the region may be interested in a referendum, but may not have formed or expressed a view. The ballot is secret. It would be wrong to expect people to express a view on which way they were going to vote in order to inform the Secretary of State. It is a curious and perverse proposal, and it is not at all practicable. It is our desire to encourage as many people as possible to vote so that referendums reflect the real view of people in a region. Clause 7 enables the Electoral Commission to do what it thinks necessary to encourage voting.
	Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are technical. I suspect that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will not regard them as crucial, so I shall concentrate on other issues raised. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon asked why North Yorkshire should not have two tiers of local government in addition to a regional tier of government, but if we are introducing a tier of regional government, two tiers of local government below it are too many. We need rationalisation to ensure that there is clarity for the electorate and to avoid the proliferation of bureaucracy. I could understand that approach from the Liberal Democrats, who are only too happy to have a proliferation of different tiers of government, but I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. He supported unitary authorities in the 1990s, but he is now singing from a different hymn sheet.
	We believe that every region should have a choice. It should be free to determine its future and way forward. That is why we have introduced the proposals, which are right and democratic. I commend the clause to the Committee and urge it to reject the amendments.

Philip Hammond: The Minister failed to respond to our concerns. He said that he did not have time, but whose fault is that? The Government could have allowed us two days on the Floor of the House. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in pressing the amendments to a Division.

It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, The Temporary Chairman, put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	The Committee divided: Ayes 135, Noes 352.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: No. 34, in page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (5).—[Matthew Green.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 47, Noes 310.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Referendum Question

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 2, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 and insert
	'Any order made pursuant to section 1 shall direct the Electoral Commission to determine the question or questions to be put in the referendum.'.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 28, in page 2, line 20, leave out 'question' and insert 'questions'.
	No. 29, in page 2, line 21, leave out 'is' and insert 'are'.
	No. 55, in page 2, line 22, at end insert—
	'(1A) A supplementary question shall be asked of persons eligible to vote whose address on the electoral register is in the administrative area of a district council for any area in which both district and county councils have functions.
	(1B) The supplementary question referred to in subsection (1A) is—
	(a) Xdo you agree with the proposals to reorganise local government in your area into unitary authorities which the Government intends to implement if an elected regional assembly is established".'.
	No. 19, in page 2, line 23, at end insert
	'(the (insert name of region) region comprises (insert names of all counties, metropolitan boroughs and unitary authority districts within the region))'.
	No. 30, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
	'( ) Do you agree with the recommendations of the Boundary Committee for England to reorganise (insert name of county council) and (insert name of district council or district councils) into a single tier of local government for your area?'.
	No. 11, in page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	'(2) The question on the ballot paper shall be preceded by a statement, in a form to be prescribed by the Electoral Commission, conveying such information as the Electoral Commission believe is requisite to enable electors to understand the question and to ensure that electors understand the conclusions of the Boundary Committee review of the region.
	(3) The statement to be prescribed under subsection (2) may not include any statement about the intended functions or powers of the proposed elected assembly unless such functions and powers are defined in an Act of Parliament.'.
	No. 31, in page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
	No. 54, in page 2, leave out line 26 and insert—
	'This referendum is advisory only.The Secretary of State will decide, after considering the referendum result, whether to establish an elected assembly for the'.
	No. 49, in page 2, line 27, leave out from second 'region', to 'be' in line 30 and insert
	'If an elected assembly is established, it is intended that—
	(a) the elected assembly would be responsible for a range of activities currently carried out mainly by central government bodies, including regional economic development; and
	(b) local government would'.
	No. 50, in page 2, line 29, leave out from 'development' to end of line 33.
	No. 20, in page 2, line 33, at end add
	'It is not proposed to establish an elected regional assembly in any region until at least three regions have voted in favour of the establishment of such assemblies in referenda conducted pursuant to section 1 above.'.
	No. 22, in page 2, line 33, at end add—
	'In the [insert name of region] region this will entail the abolition of [insert names of local authorities recommended by the Boundary Committee report to be abolished] and the creation of [insert number of new unitary authorities recommended by the Boundary Committee report to be created] new unitary authorities.
	The table below shows how the new unitary authorities recommended by the Boundary Committee will relate to the authorities to be abolished—
	
		
			 Name of new Unitary Authority Old authority areas or parts of old authority areas included 
			 [insert name of each new Unitary Authority as recommended by the Boundary Committee] [insert name of each constitutent existing local authority district or ward]'. 
		
	
	No. 38, in page 2, line 33, at end add—
	'The Boundary Committee has recommended to the Secretary of State that if an elected regional assembly for the [name of region] region is established, the electoral districts which would return directly elected members to the assembly would be as shown below:
	
		
			 Name of Electoral District Description of areas included Approximate number of electors 
			 [insert name of each electoral district recommended by the Boundary Committee pursuant to s.19(3)] [insert description of the districts/wards or other administrative units included] [insert approximate number of electors in each proposed district] 
		
	
	No. 51, in page 2, line 33, at end insert—
	'(3) In those parts of the region that currently have both county and district councils the following additional question shall be asked—
	Do you agree with the proposal to reorganise the county and district councils in your area into a single unitary tier of local government.'.

Philip Hammond: Clause 2 deals with the question to be put in a referendum and the preamble, so called. That is a piece of Government spin that will be placed on the ballot paper by primary legislation.
	This is a mixed bag of amendments grouped together and covering a number of issues. Some of them deal with the procedure; some of them are substantive in the only sense possible, given the architecture of the Bill: they seek to amend the preamble, making substantive changes to the Government's stance, as expressed through the preamble. The preamble is a one-paragraph summary of what an elected regional assembly will be, as the Government would like electors to see it. No doubt some of my hon. Friends will want to comment on the wording of the preamble.
	Amendment No. 39 is a pretty uncontroversial proposal. It proposes that the Electoral Commission should determine the question or questions to be put. The purpose of the referendum is made clear by clause 1. Surely the whole purpose of creating the Electoral Commission and giving it a role in dealing with referendums is to ensure that an impartial body not connected with Government, who are highly partial in relation to these referendums, should frame the question.
	As it happens, we do not have an objection to the wording of the question proposed in the Bill—it would be rather difficult to have an objection to it, as it is a simple and straightforward question. However, we believe that an important principle is at stake for future referendums, which must be dealt with.

John Gummer: My hon. Friend says that he does not have an objection to the question. May I point out to him that those of us who live in Suffolk have a strong objection, because if the question were asked in relation to East Anglia, it would suggest that Rickmansworth was in East Anglia? When one refers to a region that contains both Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire as if it were East Anglia, the question itself is entirely wrong.

Philip Hammond: My right hon. Friend is right, but unfortunately, as he knows, we have already had the debate on the possibility of revisiting the regional boundaries and, despite heroic efforts on the part of the opposition, have lost that argument to the Government.

Nick Raynsford: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it shows the Alice in Wonderland state of the Conservative party when the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was the architect of the regions, now describes them as preposterous?

Philip Hammond: Not at all. As the Minister well knows, the regions were created for an entirely different purpose and are completely unsuitable for the arrangements that the Government propose.

John Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the regions were created by putting together what had always been Government sections, and that they were created because the previous Government had had a series of regions, none of which were coterminous for any single purpose. The regions were created for the sake of clarity. An elected assembly ought to cover an area that people recognise as being an electoral area. Nobody in Rickmansworth has anything to do with Trimley St. Mary in my constituency.

Philip Hammond: My right hon. Friend is right. That is our fundamental objection to the Government's proposals: the regions that are being used as the basis for elected regional assemblies were created for quite a different purpose, and do not deliver the sense of identity that is required if the Government's agenda is to have any chance of success.
	Amendment No. 11 would give the Electoral Commission the slightly more difficult task of writing the preamble to the question. I am extremely sceptical about the idea of a preamble on the ballot paper, but if there is to be a preamble, it must be written by a body other than the Government, who are highly partisan in the matter.
	The preamble as drafted in the Bill is highly contentious. It goes well beyond the supply of information, which is what the Government would have us believe it does. It states that regional assemblies
	Xwould be responsible for a range of activities",
	yet we have not seen those powers enshrined in any legislation. Indeed, in the Standing Committee yesterday the Minister conceded to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) that the regional assemblies would have influence on central Government, not responsibility in the sense that most electors would understand it.
	The preamble states that the activities would be activities
	Xcurrently carried out mainly by central government bodies".
	The Minister knows that that is highly contentious. Many Opposition Members believe that the regional assemblies will suck more power up than will be devolved to them from central Government. The reference to local government reorganisation in the last couple of sentences of the preamble will not be intelligible to any ordinary elector, unless he happens to be an aficionado of local government terminology.
	Under amendment No. 11, the Electoral Commission would be required to draft a preamble that conveyed the information requisite to a proper understanding of the question and a proper understanding of the boundary committee conclusions for the region. I do not see how that could be contentious.
	The amendment would also specifically exclude any speculative statements about the functions or powers of elected assemblies yet to be created by Parliament. We simply do not know about that, and it is arrogant of the Government to pretend that simply because they include something in a White Paper or consultation document, they will be able to secure its approval in this place. Many regional referendums might take place after the next general election, and even if the Government can get their proposals through this place, they certainly cannot guarantee their unscathed delivery through the other place.

George Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are prejudging the decision of Parliament by including this passage in the preamble:
	XAn assembly would be responsible for a range of activities that are currently carried out mainly by central government bodies"?
	Until the Bill dealing with the powers of regional assemblies has been introduced, we will have no idea of what they will entail.

Philip Hammond: In a strict sense, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Even the Minister who is promoting that agenda concedes that the provisions deal not with responsibilities as ordinary people understand them, but with abilities to exercise some influence on central Government. That is precisely what the Minister said yesterday.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening when I responded to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who raised that question earlier. I pointed out that there were a number of significant powers and responsibilities. When I raised the matter in Committee last week, as the hon. Gentleman said—

Philip Hammond: Yesterday.

Nick Raynsford: Indeed. I said that the role of the elected regional assembly would be to influence government and that there would be a combination of direct delivery powers and considerable powers of influence. It is certainly not true to suggest that the assemblies will not have powers.

Philip Hammond: I do not see any evidence of that in the preamble as it is currently drafted, which states:
	XAn assembly would be responsible for a range of activities that are currently carried out".
	Perhaps the Government will table an amendment on Report saying that the assembly will not only be responsible for a range of activities, but will have the ability to influence central Government in respect of another range of activities. However, that is not what the Bill says.

Gary Streeter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister has just made his case for him? People voting in the referendums will not know where an elected regional assembly has influence, power, responsibility or decision-making ability. It is all in the lap of the gods. The Minister waves his White Paper in the air, but White Papers and draft Bills do not bind anyone. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need an Act of Parliament to spell out the responsibilities, powers and functions of the elected regional assemblies? Failing that, people will be voting in the dark.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Electors will be invited to vote for a pig in a poke. That is one of the major problems with the Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Philip Hammond: I must make a little progress.
	The Government's reluctance to introduce a Bill that Parliament can scrutinise, so that we can ensure in legislation that everyone understands precisely what the powers and responsibilities of regional assemblies will be, contrasts with their insistence that, before they can conduct a referendum, they must carry out a process of local government organisation review in each region. By their own admission, that process will take a year. Why can they not parallel-track with their current proposals the Bill to implement the regional assemblies, so that we will all know exactly where we are when the question is put?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman may recall that, when the House debated the Greater London Authority Bill, we found that its measures on the powers of the authority were very different from those in the White Paper that was published before the Bill was introduced. In the Bill, the powers of the Greater London Authority were very circumscribed, as many powers were retained by the Secretary of State. Indeed, the Bill mentioned the Secretary of State more times than the Mayor himself. He is therefore making exactly the right point, as people will be voting for an assembly that will not have the powers that the Government set out in the White Paper.

Philip Hammond: That is precisely what Opposition Members fear. We would prefer the Electoral Commission to write the preamble, but if the Government resist that proposal, the next few amendments would introduce specific improvements to help the existing preamble to be clearer and fairer in putting the situation to the voter on the day of the referendum. I would prefer the Electoral Commission to draft the preamble, but if it cannot do so, I would rather I did it than the Government.

Michael Jack: Many interventions have concentrated on the function of the regional assemblies, but does my hon. Friend agree that the first line of the preamble,
	XYou can help to decide",
	is also important, because it gives no information as to the degree of the decision-making function of the person who is asked to vote? Does he agree that there is a great deal wrong with that statement?

Philip Hammond: I do indeed. If my right hon. Friend looks at some of the other amendments, he will see that they seek to remove the first line from the preamble.
	If the Government resist the proposal to allow the Electoral Commission to write the preamble, the other amendments would make improvements. Amendment No. 19 would provide information about the region in the interests of ensuring clarity for the elector. The regions that the Government are using are so arbitrary and unconnected with people's everyday lives that voters simply will not know the extent of the regions in which they live. Of course, I concede that someone who lives in Manchester is likely to understand that they live in the north-west region, but I am prepared to bet the Minister that if he goes out on to the streets of Manchester and names at random a few communities on the periphery, people will not know whether they are included and will not have any idea of the extent of the region in which they live.
	We therefore propose that the preamble should include specific information about the extent of the region. It is not appropriate to ask whether people are interested in a referendum on a regional assembly when we do not even know at this stage whether people understand what region they live in and what other communities are included or excluded. We need some transparency, including more detail on the ballot paper than the name of the region, which is all that the Government propose that it should include.
	Amendment No. 22 seeks to insert in the preamble detail of the boundary committee recommendations. Again, it is vital that before electors make their decision about how to vote, they understand precisely how they will be affected by the boundary committee's recommendations. That can only be achieved by setting out the information in a simple tabular format, with the names of the proposed new local government units on one side of the table and those of the old local government units, or those parts that are included in the new region, on the other. That will ensure that each elector who at least knows which local government unit he currently resides in will also know which one he belongs to if the boundary commission changes proceed.
	Amendment No. 38 would do the same for electoral areas in a region. That is another Government omission. The Government propose that, although the minute detail of the changed local government structures will be known to the elector if he takes the trouble to find out about them when he votes, he will not have any information about the likely electoral divisions in the region. I suggest that those divisions are equally important to him, as he will need to know how his community will find its voice in any putative regional assembly. He will need to know about the split between rural urban influences in any such assembly.
	The Minister is defending an utterly illogical position. We are being asked to engage in a referendum with no Act defining the powers of the regional assemblies and no electoral districts telling people how their limited influence on the assembly will be exercised or with whom they will be grouped in exercising it. However, a boundary committee is an absolute requirement and the full detail of the local government reorganisation must be worked out in advance of the referendum. I suggest to him that electors will not be making an informed decision unless they understand the detail of the local government reorganisation and the electoral divisions in the region, and the powers that such a regional assembly will have.

Stephen O'Brien: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although those specific details do not appear in the amendments, because that would be to take a step too far at this stage, without them it will be impossible to know what the transitional and future establishment costs of any future configuration of local representation will be? To lay the charge of the administration at the door of local people through their council tax and other taxes, without their knowing the cost of those changes, would represent a considerable absence of information in their decision making.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will recall that the Labour manifesto at the 1997 election, which committed the Labour party to going down the route of elected regional government, said that it would do so only if it could produce an independent auditor's report confirming that no additional public expenditure would be involved. That commitment has been quietly dropped. It will be blindingly apparent to all my right hon. and hon. Friends that the local government reorganisation that the Government are making a prerequisite for elected regional assemblies will indeed involve a significant additional amount of public expenditure.
	Amendment No. 54 would change the opening lines of the preamble to deal, in part, with the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). The words inserted by the amendment would say explicitly to the elector, whom the Government would like to mislead by saying
	XYou can help to decide whether there should be an elected assembly"—
	[Interruption.] Well, it would be misleading. Under the amendment, the elector would be told:
	XThis referendum is advisory only. The Secretary of State will decide, after considering the referendum result, whether to establish an elected assembly."
	By changing those lines, we would introduce clarity and a bit of honesty into the preamble that is to be put to the voters.
	Amendment No. 20 is something of a probing amendment.

Edward Davey: It is a wrecking amendment.

Philip Hammond: It is not a wrecking amendment; it is a probing amendment. It proposes a clear statement in the preamble against a single-region settlement. The device that we have used is to write a Government intention into the preamble. The purpose is to get the Minister to address the issue of critical mass. Part of the argument for regional assemblies is, and has always been, that they would provide a counterweight to the centralised, London-focused system of national Government. We have no argument with the desire to devolve power downwards, so long as it is downwards, so long as it is devolved to coherent units, and so long as it is power, and not just responsibility without any real power, which would allow the Government to keep the power and lose the accountability. That is what we fear will happen here.
	If we had a one-region solution, with one region opting for elected regional government and no other region following, we should not have a critical counterweight. There is a need for critical mass if this function is to be performed. I therefore invite the Government to consider setting some kind of threshold, so that, if we are to have elected regional assemblies as part of our constitutional settlement, there cannot just be one, or—I would suggest—two. Before the assemblies are established, a number of referendums need to be conducted and won.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he conceives of London as having a role in this concept? Does he believe that the people of London should be involved in this process? Or does he believe that the fact that a quasi-regional body already exists in London means that one region already has an assembly, and that that should be taken into account when making the calculations set out in the amendment?

Philip Hammond: The Minister would, I think, struggle to argue that a devolved assembly in London helps to provide a counterweight to London. That is the argument that has been advanced for elected regional government in other parts of the country.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that, when we were debating the Greater London Authority Bill, we challenged the Minister on many occasions by saying that he was creating regional government. He insisted at the time, however, that it was city-wide government, and local government. He would not allow it to be linked to the regional agenda, as we were trying to do.

Philip Hammond: I shall not intervene in this lovers' tiff between the Liberals and the Government. No doubt they can sort it out afterwards.
	I contend that it would be very odd if we ended up with a dramatic change in our constitutional arrangements, the end effect of which was simply that one region was the odd man out in an otherwise unitary England. These proposals highlight the inappropriateness of changing our constitutional arrangements for one, or perhaps two, regions.

Alan Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Hammond: I must make some progress. The right hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his own contribution in due course, and I look forward to it.
	Amendment No. 55 and the amendments tabled in the name of the Liberal Democrats deal with the possibility of separating the testing of opinion on local government reorganisation from the testing of opinion on regional elected assemblies, and propose that, in two-tier authorities only—where change to a unitary structure will be required—a separate question should be put to the electors, asking whether they are in favour of the unitarisation of their local government arrangements. That seems eminently sensible. It would allow the Secretary of State, when making his decision following the advisory referendum, to know whether there was support for the idea of an elected regional assembly, and to balance that support against the strength of opposition to the reorganisation of local government in the parts of the region that would be subject to it.
	The Liberals have argued against compulsory unitarisation of local government, and we have a great deal of sympathy with their argument. Unfortunately, they have drawn the wrong conclusion. They would be happy to introduce yet another tier of government, more elected politicians, more expenses, more headquarters buildings, more tax, more spending and more bureaucracy. So the Liberals have identified the issue, but drawn the wrong conclusion. We draw the conclusion that the Government's proposals are fundamentally flawed and do not present a stable, sustainable solution for government below the national level in England. This amendment would not directly address that issue, but it would allow the Secretary of State separately to measure opinion in those areas. I shall leave the Liberals to say more on that in due course. I commend this diverse group of amendments to the Committee.

Edward Davey: Given that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was so kind about some of our amendments, even though he could not bring himself to support all of them, I shall start by saying that the Liberal Democrats support his amendment No. 39. The idea that the Electoral Commission should draw up the questions is eminently sensible. I have to say that, when his party was in government, it was not very keen on the idea of sub-contracting out decision making to an independent body. If it has had a conversion in favour of restricting the power of the Executive, however, we welcome that.
	In approaching the clause and in considering the question and the preamble before us, we should reflect on the advice that the Electoral Commission has proffered to Parliament and to the Government. Although the Minister is aware of the advice that has been sent to him, I shall read it out. I think that he will use it as a defence, but I hope to show that it is weak. The commission
	Xtakes the view that, as the issue is complex and potentially unfamiliar to many voters, the intelligibility of the question is dependent on the inclusion of a preamble providing extra information. Given that a preamble is to be provided, the proposed question meets the Commission's assessment guidelines."
	In other words, the preamble is essential, otherwise the question would not be intelligible.

Michael Jack: May I probe the hon. Gentleman's understanding of intelligibility? At what reading age should the question be set?

Edward Davey: That is a good question. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Electoral Commission's assessment guidelines on questions. There are 10, although I am afraid that they do not consider reading age, so that does not help him. However, they refer to the question being well structured and not too long. That might help him, and I am more than happy to show him the guidelines if he has not seen them.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has talked about the importance of the preamble and quoted the Electoral Commission's advice, which he says is important. In quoting that advice, he has shown why it believes that a preamble is necessary. Will he now tell us why he has tabled amendment No. 31, which would delete the preamble?

Edward Davey: I do not know whether the Minister was listening properly, but I said that I would come to that. I do not think that the Electoral Commission will be given enough scope to analyse the issue properly. I shall return to that, as we need to refer to other primary legislation.
	What is particularly interesting is the fact that the Electoral Commission advice goes on to suggest that the Government's proposed preamble is not that intelligible. The Minister ought to listen, as the commission is an independent body that was set up by his Government and it has criticised his preamble. The Electoral Commission has suggested an alternative, which we have set out in our amendment No. 49. He may want to intervene on this point: will he accept that amendment, which would put in the Bill, word for word, the advice proffered by the Electoral Commission?

Nick Raynsford: No, because we believe that it is right to listen to the views expressed in the House as well as those expressed by the Electoral Commission before deciding on an appropriate amendment to table on Report, which will no doubt pay considerable heed to the commission's views. It would be wrong to pre-empt Members of the House, who have an opportunity in the debate to influence our thinking. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.

Edward Davey: That is a very odd argument. I thought that the House was giving the Minister its advice now. We already have the Electoral Commission's advice so, presumably, we ought to vote on this now rather than delay any further. I am surprised that he wants to wait until we consider the Bill on Report, but if he insists, we shall table our amendment then.
	As to whether we should take the Electoral Commission as the final word on the matter, I am afraid that I do not think we should. We should consider what the Electoral Commission is allowed to do. It is allowed only to comment on the particular question in the Bill and any subsequent preamble. It is not able to take a view on how many questions ought to be included in a referendum to put across the point being made and the issue on which people are being asked to give their opinion. If the Electoral Commission had been asked to do that, my view is that, rather than go for a preamble and a question, it would probably have gone for two questions, as that is what is being asked.
	The Government have not allowed that issue to be debated by the commissioners either in respect of the underlying legislation that set up the Electoral Commission or, as I understand it, in any other directions to the commission, so I must press the Minister. Are the Government prepared, before the Bill is considered on Report, specifically to ask the Electoral Commission whether two questions would be clearer, more intelligible and more sensible as a way forward to decide those matters than one question and the preamble?

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a dangerous precedent will be set if that is not done? Are we to have general elections involving a preamble to explain why this or that Member might or might not be suitable for this or that constituency? If we are to have a referendum on, let us say, the euro, will there be a nice explanation of why it would be good or not so good for Britain so as to enable people to make up their minds? Is not that a serious constitutional concept?

Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman has a smidgen of a point, although he stretches his argument a little far in relating it to the general election. I do not think that even this Government would go that far, but I take his general point that we in the House must be careful before accepting preambles linked to questions that we ask the electorate. We must think carefully about whether we could discard the preamble and just ask the electorate—the grown-up, mature electorate—the questions. Trying to hide a question in a preamble is not transparent or open.
	The debate is about the fact that the Government are trying to hide the issues from the electorate. Because the Electoral Commission did not have power to consider the issue more widely, I am not sure that the advice I read out can be the last word.

Gary Streeter: Is there not another point to be made? In a sense, the last place where a preamble needs to appear is a ballot paper. One would hope that most of those voting in person would have made up their minds about the arguments before entering the booth. How many people arrive at a polling station not knowing how they will vote? Is it not more important to convey proper information to the electorate in advance about what is involved—the powers, the functions, the districts, the geography, the whole works—before they reach the stage of voting?

Edward Davey: I agree to an extent, but let us remember the reason for the preamble. Something is being hidden from the electorate. If they were asked two clear questions, no preamble to either would be needed. Someone, somewhere, is trying to hide something from the voters, and what worries me most is that lack of transparency.

Philip Hammond: Surely the reason for a preamble rather than a question is that voters are being given no choice on the second, hidden part of the question.

Edward Davey: Indeed. In fact, I was going to invite the Minister, if he is not prepared to ask the Electoral Commission whether two questions would be preferable, to make a slightly different inquiry about whether a second question would obviate the need for a preamble. If we knew on Report that the Minister had made that inquiry and had received assurances—which, of course, he would publish, being such an open and transparent Minister—we would be much more likely to accept the clause. Is the Minister going to tell us that he will do that?

Nick Raynsford: The Liberal Democrats continue to astonish me. The hon. Gentleman will know, because there is already advice from the Electoral Commission, that we have consulted the commission. It has made its recommendations, which we will heed carefully because we think them sensible. However, we will wait to hear all the opinions expressed in the debate before making a final decision on how the preamble should be framed and whether amendments will be necessary on Report.

Edward Davey: The Minister is very able and is respected in all parties, but he knows that the original Act did not enable the commission to say that two questions would be better in this instance. It was only able to comment on the one question and the preamble, and the intelligibility of those. I am challenging the Minister on whether he is prepared to return to the commission to clarify the point. If he is so worried about how the House feels, as he ought to be, he should reflect its concern by doing as I suggest.
	Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31 and 50 are linked in many respects. They are all intended to secure that second question. If the Minister is not prepared to go to the Electoral Commission, let us try to put that question on the ballot paper ourselves. Not only would it provide greater clarity, and avoid potential allegations that the Government are trying to hide something from the electorate; it would, in my view, bring about greater democracy.
	We should give the electorate the chance to make their decision in separate questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said earlier, we want people to have power to make decisions about the government they want. We want them to have not just the power to vote for a regional assembly, but the power to decide what structure local government should have in their areas—to decide whether they want unitary authorities, and whether they want county and district councils to be restructured.

Matthew Green: Does my hon. Friend also accept that separating out the question would increase the number of people who are likely to vote yes to regional government, because they would not be diverted by the issue of whether they want a change to local government? The proposal would therefore assist the Minister in his aim of achieving regional government.

Edward Davey: Absolutely. If the proposal were accepted, the Minister would for once be saying that the Government were going to trust people. They would not be imposing a restructuring of local government in the manner of the previous Conservative Government; they would actually be asking people in those areas what they think.
	My personal opinion is that it would be better to see some reorganisation and to move to unitary government, but I see no reason why I, the Minister or anyone else in the House should foist that on people. If people do not want to pay more—the issue that seems to concern the Conservatives most—they will vote for unitarisation.

Alan Beith: The problem is worse than that. First, the people concerned will be asked to vote for a specific scheme of unitary government that is not necessarily the one that they would choose; secondly, the decision will be made not by them but by the great majority of people who already live in unitary areas, such as those in the northern regions. Those people have no interest in the outcome, but because they are voting on the regional issue they will determine what kind of unitary system the minority, who currently live in two-tier areas, will get.

Edward Davey: My right hon. Friend is of course exactly right, and he brings me to the final amendment that I wish to speak to.

Stephen O'Brien: On the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the simple solution is to force the conclusion that it is right to vote against the Bill; otherwise, one is simply exacerbating the problem that has been highlighted.

Edward Davey: What we are trying to do is to amend the Bill so that it is in line with our views and our policy. We voted for it on Second Reading because unlike the Conservatives, we are in favour of regional devolution. We want to democratise existing regional government, but it was the Conservatives who set up a whole series of quangos that govern the lives of our constituents. Those quangos cannot be held to account, so we need regional democracy, which is why we support the Bill.

Philip Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman was very generous to me, so I shall be generous to him.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understand his aspiration, but if, as we must anticipate, he is unsuccessful in achieving it and the Government proceed with the Bill on the basis that the price for elected regional assemblies is the compulsory unitarisation of all local government in the regions, will the Liberal Democrats support that process, or will they join us in opposing it?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) are anticipating not just tonight's voting, but voting in another place. I can assure the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that we will urge our colleagues to amend the Bill to make it more democratic, and I hope that he will ask the same of his. My concern is that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the other place may be trying to wreck this Bill, and that they do not in fact want to democratise regional government. That is the issue before us.

Derek Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member, and it is a delight to let him in.

Derek Foster: That is very kind of the hon. Gentleman. I invite him to speculate, were there to be a second question, on the size of the preamble that would seek to explain to the electorate the various alternatives that local government might imply for them and their families.

Edward Davey: Well, we do not have to look very far to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the preamble becoming too long. We need look no further than amendment No. 51—I was about to discuss it—which would insert a second question for those affected by local government restructuring. To them, the county councils and district councils that would be mentioned in it are very real, because they have voted for them for several decades. If that question were provided for those people, a preamble would not be necessary because the question would be so clear.
	Amendment No. 51 not only deals with the problem mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed: ensuring that the referendum result is fair, and that people from the majority part of the region are not imposing local government restructuring on the minority part; if amendment No. 51 were accepted, we would be more likely to get what the Government desire: a yes vote in the referendum on the regional assemblies. By decoupling the issues and creating greater democracy, we are more likely to gain the people's trust and then get the right result for the Government.

Joyce Quin: I support the idea of decoupling the issue of local government reorganisation from regional government, so the principle behind the amendments is one that I understand and support. However, the way in which they are phrased does not attract me, because they involve a choice between one solution of unitary government—the one that the boundary committee recommends—and the status quo, which would still leave the areas concerned with two tiers.
	One way of dealing with that might have been to have a separate question for the areas affected by local government reorganisation, to the effect that there was a choice between one or other form of unitary government. One of the Liberal Democrat councillors in the north-east, Chris Foote-Wood, has proposed such a formula for a second question. Since I, like the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), am a supporter of unitary government, that might have been one way of dealing with it.
	I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will not close their minds to the possibility of decoupling the issue from the main debate on regional government. Failure to do so would send a message that regional government had something to do with local government, whereas—as my right hon. Friend the Minister knows—those of us who have been keen on regional government for a long time see it as something important in its own right, something that could be supported on its own merits and something that would bring a new form of democracy to our country.
	I do not accept any of the arguments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). It is a shame that someone with the historic name of Runnymede in his constituency title should be so resistant to any constitutional innovation, and I am disappointed by his narrow-minded attitude to regional government. However, I hope that the Government will look at the ideas behind the Liberal Democrat amendments, even if, like me, they are not attracted by the specific amendments.
	I want to refer to the comments made by Conservative Members about their fears about the destruction of the counties, and they often refer to the idea of the historic counties. Having been born and brought up in the historic county of Northumberland, and representing now two towns in the historic county of Durham, I know perfectly well that the historic counties have not existed for a long time. Indeed, they were effectively destroyed by the then Conservative Government in the 1970s. I do not recall the Conservatives taking into account at the time the feelings of identity that people had with those historic counties. Their argument about counties is misplaced, and the previous Conservative Government compounded the matter by some of the decisions they took, understandably, to allow unitary areas in other parts of the former historic counties. We should not be attracted to their points of view. None the less, I urge my hon. Friends to accept that it is important, in the campaign to establish regional government in this country, that a clear distinction be drawn between the role and functions of regional government and those of local government. It is possible to believe strongly in the need for stronger and more effective local government—as Labour Members do—without that contradicting the principle that we must have an equally strong regional democratic government in those areas that want it.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge argued that it would not be possible to have regional government in only one area of England. I found that argument incomprehensible. At present, we already have what is referred to as an asymmetrical form of devolution in this country. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly each have their unique powers, and a special arrangement is in place for London. A number of special arrangements exist: if such an arrangement suited the people in north-east England, for instance, why should they be denied something to which people elsewhere in the UK have been given an entitlement?
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge seemed to take the view that England must be standardised. That is entirely wrong. Indeed, that standardisation approach has bedevilled previous local government reorganisations, as it does not take account of regional and local feeling.

Andrew Lansley: Does not the right hon. Lady accept that the Government are offering devolution only on their own terms? Other parts of the UK may not want to adopt the standard model—for example, they might prefer central Government powers to be devolved to upper-tier authorities such as county councils. If people in the north-east want, and vote for, regional government, that would be okay for them. However, that may well be the exception and the Government would not allow others a different form of devolution.

Joyce Quin: I do not accept that. The Bill allows a certain form of regional government for areas that decide that they want it. However, why should not a future Government listen to different proposals that may come forward from areas that decide otherwise? As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton noted, there is no reason why a future Government should not produce proposals for unitary local government in areas that do not want to move to regional government. That is another reason why the two issues should be decoupled.

Andrew Lansley: The point that the right hon. Lady makes is contradicted by the specific example of planning. The Government propose that regional planning will be conducted either by the elected regional assemblies or by unelected—nominated—regional planning bodies. People will not have the option to say that the devolved planning responsibilities in their region should be conducted at a sub-regional level or by counties. That option is simply not available.

Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about one aspect of this decentralisation process. However, although I believe that the proposals will suit my part of the country, the north-east, it is perfectly possible that, in the future, different proposals could be formulated that would suit other parts of the country. It is absurd of the hon. Gentleman to see the decentralisation process as a one-off event that closes the door on any future innovation.

Stephen O'Brien: I want to substantiate the point made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). If people in north Cumbria—the old county of Cumberland—had to suffer regional government, they might prefer to be part of her north-east regional assembly than a north-west assembly. How would that be tested if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asserts, there is no possibility that one region of England can go it alone?

Joyce Quin: I strongly support the Government's approach of proceeding on the basis of the regional boundaries that we have because that is the way to make progress with regional devolution. However, I am perfectly relaxed about the prospect of having an elected assembly in the north-west and one in the north-east or even not having an elected assembly in the north-west and yet there being a sufficient desire to reopen the boundary issue at some point. My perspective is different from that of the hon. Gentleman; he seems to imagine that regional boundaries are prisons from which one cannot escape. That is an absurd notion. Why should a north-western region not co-operate with the north-east over transport links and economic links in border areas of the regions?
	This is not an entrapment mechanism; it will enable regions to look at their needs and to co-operate. The devolved structures in European countries and elsewhere in the world often have structures that allow regions to co-operate with each other. To see regions as something from which one can never escape or to believe that it is impossible for them to have a dialogue with central Government or other regions is an absurd way of viewing the situation.
	I hope that we can make progress on the Bill. Despite hoping that Ministers will look at local government reorganisation somewhat differently, I strongly support the Government's overall approach to the issue.

John Gummer: It is important, when considering the referendum question, to recognise that the regions were first established for the convenience of Government to deal with elected counties in particular and unitary authorities. That is why they are drawn as they are—it is for the convenience of Government, while counties, districts and unitary authorities are the elected convenience. If we turn that round and take away the elected counties, we are doing something very different. That is why I draw a distinction between the regions as a Government convenience—it was more convenient to have a common Government local region rather than having different regions for different purposes—and the Minister's suggestion that the regions to which individuals naturally show some allegiance are convenient for Government. Historically, people did not do that because they were in a county or district, depending on the issue, or a unitary authority.

Jim Knight: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: In a moment.
	In many parts of the country, the region itself holds no particular attraction. I agree with the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). I am sure that in the north-east and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the north-west, there will be those who see some connection between themselves and a place called the north-east. We have all found that in our travels around the countryside, and in our business and political life. However, I hope that she will accept from me that that does not exist for some regions. I am not trying to have a row with the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. We can have a bit of badinage, but he knows perfectly well whether there is a connection between Rickmansworth and my constituency. Rickmansworth is to a great extent part of greater London, with which it connects itself and has no connection with my part of the country.
	It is likely that if there were a referendum, most of the people of the so-called eastern region would vote no to the first question put to them. They would be more likely to vote no if there were not a second question. Even more antagonism is created by the idea of local government reorganisation of the kind we know that the Government have in mind.
	In my constituency, before the last general election, a proposal was floated—and chatted out by the local Labour party—that there should be a new unitary authority called Greater Ipswich. If there is one thing that the people of Felixstowe like less than the idea of being part of a region called East Anglia that includes Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, it is becoming part of Greater Ipswich. Anyone who has ever experienced the complete incompetence of Ipswich borough council will understand why the people of Felixstowe do not want to be part of it. The Minister may make faces, but one reason that people do not want that change is that their council tax will go through the roof.

Andrew Lansley: Another thing that my right hon. Friend's constituents may not like is the fact that they could be asked such a question at a time when they did not know where the seat of regional government was to be. If they would not like to be part of Ipswich, they would probably not like to be governed from Cambridge—part of which I represent—or still less, from the big new city the size of Milton Keynes that the East of England planning body proposes to establish in the eastern region. Perhaps the East of England is proposing the Brasilia option.

John Gummer: Without following my hon. Friend too far down that route, I merely note that although the East of England planning authority is proposing the establishment of that new city, it is unwilling to tell us where it would be, in case the proposal is unpopular with anyone who lives there at present.
	If two questions are not included in the referendum, the Government will get a much lower vote in a number of areas. People can see the difference between the two questions. I shall vote no to both of them, but that will not be true of everyone in my constituency. Obviously, I want to give the proposal a fair wind; I should not dream of doing otherwise—I want people to have the chance to choose. I am sure that the vote will be overwhelmingly against it, but we should let people have the chance.
	What is wrong with asking two questions when the alternative is the interesting preamble to the referendum question set out in clause 2(2)? I want to make some points about the preamble, Mr. Winterton—[Hon. Members: XSir Nicholas."]—I beg your pardon, Sir Nicholas.

Nick Raynsford: The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) emphasises the importance of giving people choice. Will he tell the House how much choice he gave people at the time of the Banham review, over which he presided? Was there an option for a referendum in any electoral district of the country under the Conservative Government's reorganisation?

John Gummer: As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, because I have told him privately on several occasions, I neither wrote the terms of the boundary commission's operation, nor did I approve of the way in which they were drawn up or of the people who drew them up. If he thinks that I shall defend the structure, he has another think coming—I have never done so anywhere.
	Happily, we are not discussing the Banham review but the Bill. I realise of course that the Minister would like to discuss something else because he does not like the Bill. That is the problem. I always know when the right hon. Gentleman does not like what he has to do; his smile becomes broader and deeper and he becomes more avuncular and much more charming than he ever is when he is really keen on something.
	The right hon. Gentleman is not keen on the Bill and the reason is the extremely peculiar piece of writing to which I referred. I am sure that he did not write the statement himself—it is not elegant enough. Why was it included? Because the Government are very afraid that faced with the simple question,
	XShould there be an elected assembly for the region?"—
	the East Anglian region, or wherever it is—many people will say, XI don't know", or even worse, XI don't care". So we have to start with a bit of indoctrination explaining why people should know and care.
	I do not know whether the Minister has noticed how long it normally takes people to vote at a polling station, but if they all have to sit down and read and understand the statement—

Andrew Lansley: There will be no queues.

John Gummer: Of course not, because so few people will vote that there will be plenty of time. Perhaps that is what the Minister hopes. Perhaps he hopes that less than 20 per cent. of the electorate will bother to turn out so the queues will not be too long.

Michael Jack: Does my right hon. Friend see a picture where someone may seek help and an interpretation of those words at the ballot box? How would that matter be resolved?

John Gummer: I do not know. Indeed, those who are unfortunately disabled in one way or another may need the normal arrangements that help them to vote to be extended in some way, and I do not know what the Minister would do in those circumstances. Will someone be there to read the preamble to anyone who is partially sighted, for example? That is a serious question. This is a different kind of voting from that which we have had before.

Edward Davey: I think that the right hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the Minister. The Minister wants a lot of people to vote; it is No. 10 Downing street that does not.

John Gummer: None of us can entirely know what is going on in No. 10 Downing street, so I should not like to follow the hon. Gentleman down that path.
	The preamble exists because the Government are uncertain that the public will understand what they are being asked to do. The preamble might be justified if it helped to make things certain, but it does not, which is why I support the amendments that relate to the preamble's wording.
	First, the preamble says:
	XYou can help to decide whether there should be an elected assembly in"
	whichever region it is. That may or may not be true, but it is certainly not what the public think help means. They think that, if they mark their crosses on the ballot papers and there are more crosses in favour than against, they will have helped to create an elected regional assembly, but that will not happen. What will happen is that the result will be communicated to the Secretary of State, who will decide, so the public are only helping to advise the Secretary of State.
	The referendums will be advisory. At the very least, the preamble, if we are to have one, must say that the referendums are advisory and that the public are partially helping and making a bit of a contribution. However, even fewer people will vote when they understand that, but saying it is worth while.
	The preamble then says:
	Xthe regional assembly would be responsible for a range of activities".
	 I am always suspicious when people use the phrase Xa range of activities". What the blazes does a range of activities mean?
	I noted the fact that the Minister referred to a number of very real powers, but he did not mention what those powers would be. He also said that there would be a number of opportunities to advise, but which opportunities, which circumstances and would anyone bother to listen? All that is unclear. The preamble is a load of old guff and, what is more, those reading it will realise that it is.

Gary Streeter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people who will vote in the referendums do not need a preamble? What they need is an Act of Parliament to be passed, spelling out the functions and responsibilities of the elected regional assemblies, and an executive summary to be made available to them so that they know exactly what they are voting for.

John Gummer: I want to ask why that will not be done, because it is so obvious. I suspect that it will not be done for exactly the same reason as why the Government were so coy about the powers of the Mayor of London: they do not want to say what the powers will be.

Jim Knight: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: No.
	The Government do not want anyone to be too certain about the powers because they may not wish to provide so many powers, or they may wish to be more vague about them, so that they can find out who voted for the regional assembly before defining them. I noticed that, when the person whom the Government had hoped would not be chosen was elected as Mayor of London, he got rather less power than the mayor might have got if another gentlemen had won. I think that that is what this is all about.
	The Bill is about not defining the powers too precisely so that the Government can see what happens. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) should remember that, if they were defined in an Act of Parliament, there would not be much give and take at the edges. If they are defined simply by a few words from the Minister and Labour party headquarters and by a comforting remark from the Prime Minister, no doubt, the powers can be adjusted according to region.
	Do we know whether the powers will be the same in every region? Or perhaps those regions that generally seem to be on the Government's side may be given a bit more power and those that do not support them a bit less? A real, constitutional reason therefore exists for saying that the preamble is a fudge designed to make sure that the Government do not get hoist with their own petard.
	My last point is in relation to the reorganisation of local government as hidden in this preamble. I have said that I would like two questions, but I do not know who will understand this preamble. A single tier can mean a range of things. In Suffolk, people would generally prefer the counties. Whatever the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West said, in Suffolk, when the local reorganisation to which she referred took place, the historic county was replaced, because, in the 1870s, it was divided into two—East and West Suffolk—and the historic county came back into operation in 1974. I want to remind her of her history, however, because the proposals of the then Conservative Government were much closer to the historic counties than the proposals put forward in the Redcliffe-Maud report, which was a very socialist report—I think that you and I, Sir Nicholas, are the only two Members present who can remember those great days. That report would have swept away many of the structures that we are discussing, and would have been a recipe for a new socialist Britain, much of which, happily, we managed to defeat.
	The fact of the matter is that those of us who live in historic counties do not want to lose them. I know that because of my experience in local government reform. I did not choose that task—it was one of those things that was handed on—and I have always believed that local government reform is a disaster for anyone who does it, in any circumstances, ever since it has been done. This Government will find that as well. It is one of those things: a fact of life. It is no good thinking that is a party political question. Whatever the Minister says about the last Government, local government reform is always difficult because there are lots of people out there who want something totally different from lots of other people, and there is no way of satisfying everybody. The Minister will be very unpopular, and nobody will like the reforms much, but that is the nature of local government reform, not the nature of the Bill.
	This Bill and question, however, are worse than most. That is because they do not do the job that the Minister wants. He should think about his love of history and the accumulated wisdom of the past, about which I have heard him talk on a number of occasions, and say to himself, XIsn't it odd that this will be the first kind of referendum that needs a whole lot of guff before we can get anybody to vote on it?" Would it not be better to throw it out and replace it with two simple questions? The first question should ask whether there should be an elected assembly for the East Anglian region—I use my region as an example—and list the counties of which that region would consist. Everybody would then know what was being talked about. When one refers to East Anglia in Suffolk, people think that that means Norfolk, Suffolk and possibly Cambridgeshire. It certainly does not include Essex, as we never include Essex in any circumstances, and none of us has ever thought that Bedfordshire was in East Anglia.
	The second question would be very simple: should the local authority now be a unitary authority called, for example, Greater Ipswich? One of the reasons my majority increased at the last election was that I mentioned, because I thought it right, to everybody in Felixstowe that the Labour party wanted a Greater Ipswich. The vote on that subject was very satisfactory. I cannot therefore promise the Minister that he will make progress very fast in that area.

Nick Raynsford: I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's love of history. He has commented on the possible electoral consequences of his actions, so does he think that the Labour party's remarkable electoral success in Berkshire in the 1997 election owed anything to his decision to abolish the historic county of Berkshire?

John Gummer: The Labour party's success in Berkshire owed more to its success in the United Kingdom as a whole. As the Minister well knows, there is no indication that the Labour party did better in Berkshire than elsewhere. After the next election, it is unlikely that the Labour party will be able to point to any part of Berkshire that is represented by a Labour Member. That will have nothing to do with electoral reorganisation either.
	There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was wrong to say that the proposal was like buying a pig in a poke. If we buy a pig in a poke, we at least find the pig and the poke. With this proposal, we do not know what we are buying. When we buy a pig in a poke, we know that we are not getting a horse. With this proposal, we have no idea. Decent constitutional needs require simple constitutional questions, so can we have two simple questions in all parts of the country? In most parts of the country, people will say no, but let us ask them, trust them and not give them guff.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nicholas Winterton: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I shall seek to be helpful to a Committee of the whole House. Several Members wish to contribute to the debate. If they are brief, more of them may be able to speak before we run out of time than would otherwise be the case.

George Howarth: I shall try to heed your instructions, Mr. Winterton.
	The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in his tigerish manner, suggested that the politics of identity were important. He hit on an important truth. We often define our identity not so much in terms of whom we associate with but of whom we do not want to be associated with. I served for a couple of years as a junior Minister in Northern Ireland, and I am well aware of the truth of that, sad though it may often be.
	I grew up and spent most of my young life in Huyton. Until I was a young man, it was part of Lancashire but, in 1974, it was put into Merseyside. I slightly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on this point. Although a Conservative Government introduced the legislation, it made more sense for the people of Huyton to be in Merseyside than it ever did for us to be in Lancashire. That is as true today as it was then.I now live in Prescot. It used to be in my constituency but, because of the vagaries of boundary changes, it no longer is. Many people who live there consider that they live still live in Lancashire. Because there is no natural border with Lancashire, they have a somewhat vain hope that they will return to it.
	I should have said at the outset that I intend to support the Opposition's lead amendment—amendment No. 39. There should be a second question on the ballot paper in my part of the world. People should be asked whether they would prefer to have a Greater Merseyside assembly or authority. I shall try to work out the details of the question, but my current argument is that that option should be available.
	I noted that my right hon. Friend the Minister was anxious to preserve the position of London. He challenged the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman several times on the implications of their amendments for that city. If the arrangements in London—possibly minus Ken Livingstone—are satisfactory for people there, why can we not have something similar on Merseyside? For that matter, why can the people of Manchester or Newcastle not have something similar if they so wish?
	I made it clear that I object in principle to the whole process. However, the Bill received Second Reading, although not with my support because I abstained, and the Government's majority means that it is almost certain to end up on the statute book. As the argument develops, I think that more people will share my view. If I can convince the people of Merseyside to support me, I hope that they will have the ability to say, XThis is the future we want." Current arrangements allow them some control over their transport and that would continue under the process that I advocate. No doubt they would want to have some influence over policing. We have a good relationship with the chief constable and all the local authorities have a good relationship with the police through partnership arrangements. They would want to have local control over other things as well.
	I object to the Government's proposal because there is no natural sympathy between the people who live on Merseyside and the people of Manchester. There is no connection between the people of Cheshire and the people of Merseyside. There are connections for those people who have moved around, but they are different places with different histories, different backgrounds and, let us be honest about it, possibly different aspirations. The same is probably true of Lancashire. I cannot begin to describe what a strange relationship we have with Cumbria. It is a wonderful place. I love the people and am keen on my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent it, but there is no natural connection with my constituency other than the fact that we love to go there for our holidays, for a day out or to go camping or walking.
	I have grave doubts about the process, but my right hon. Friend could persuade me and some of my colleagues who are beginning to share my view to take a different approach if he at least gave the major urban areas the opportunity to carve out their own identity. Frankly, the one-size-fits-all arrangement will not suit Merseyside. I hope that he has listened carefully to my comments. I will support the Opposition on the amendment. I hope not to be put in that position repeatedly and that my right hon. Friend will give me a reason to support the Government again on this matter.

Stephen O'Brien: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who has held a consistent and reasoned view on the legitimate question of marrying identity with what feels right so that the local government configuration serves the mutual interests of belonging and accountability. He and I debated that recently on a north-west television hustings programme. Some 800 calls were taken during that half-hour programme. I know that the Minister is keen to establish whether there is support for regional assemblies and that he wants to take soundings on them. The idea of the programme was to test support for a north-west regional assembly. I argued against it and said that there was no need or demand for it. As it happens, my view came out on top. It might help to bear that in mind in terms of soundings.
	I endorse the points made so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and will vote accordingly. Speaking as the only Member whose constituency, Eddisbury, is named from the original hundred, it is clear that what the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East said about identity as the core will be uppermost in the minds of people who have to consider the decision. Those of us who are privileged and proud to represent seats in Cheshire—I say this, knowing very well that you are one of those, Sir Nicholas—are in no doubt about people's sense that they come from a county rather than from the north-west. No matter that some counties are only 25 years old and others are many hundreds of years old—or indeed that, following one reincarnation, some have been returned to their original state.
	I say that by way of providing a background to consideration of clause 2 and the referendum question. The right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) was unable properly to respond to that question because there will not be only a Xone size fits all" approach but a difficult, desynchronised process intended to deal with the Government's proposed devolution arrangements for England. England is the entity being considered, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already having been addressed.
	The failure to give the people of north Cumberland, the residents of the old Cumberland county, the option of saying whether they feel it appropriate to be in the north-west, the north-east or perhaps a newly named north region is a major hole in the Government's proposals. Endorsing the erudite arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), it demonstrates why there should be two referendum questions, not least because that addresses so many of the questions asked in interventions.
	Despite the Minister's attempt to claim otherwise, the preamble will not meet the requirement under section 104 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 that the Electoral Commission consider the intelligibility of the wording of the referendum question. The preamble begins:
	XYou can help to decide whether there should be an elected assembly in the . . . region."
	That does not give the reader a sense that there is a real choice, as it would if it were rephrased—if it is to remain. I endorse all the arguments as to why it is guff. Any preamble should read, XYou can help to decide whether there should or should not be an elected assembly." It would then be clear that there was a choice.
	The reason for my suspicion, and for my endorsement of the amendments, is the fact that the chief executive of the existing north-west regional assembly, a certain Mr. Steve Machin, has already conducted an exercise in which he sent out postcards that could be returned if the recipient were in favour of a north-west region. There was no option on the card to suggest something else or, more important, to state a preference for the status quo.
	Hey presto, the exercise is now being prayed in evidence by Mr. Machin and all those who are desperate for the establishment of a north-west region to justify their jobs, so there seems to be a high percentage of support for the proposal. Having corresponded with Mr. Machin, I have placed on record my view that that was an illegitimate way of securing support for the north-west region that he is so anxious to establish. He wrote back, saying, XWell, if you can get sponsorship for your question, we would be very happy to conduct a similar exercise."

George Osborne: Mr. Machin's behaviour is one reason why the Labour party in the north-west is divided, as we have seen from the speech by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). The behaviour of the current north-west assembly has put most people in the region off the whole idea of an elected assembly.

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. Even while protected by the privileges of the House, I shall only go so far as to say that I dare say he will share my aspiration that the Minister will conduct close, careful scrutiny of events in the north-west assembly. I gather that he has made a commitment on the Floor of the House that if there has been any use of public money for such arrangements, it will be regarded as a serious matter which could have consequences. Without evidence and absolute proof, it would be wrong to do anything more than simply ask the Minister to be aware that this matter needs deep consideration and close scrutiny.
	I shall soon conclude to allow others to speak, but I back the amendments tabled by my colleagues. There is no clear popular demand for north-west regional government. The process of taking soundings requires trust and must not be nobbled—one argument must not be favoured over another. It is therefore extremely important that we note the behaviour of some of those who are strong advocates of regional government in the north-west, as their actions and approaches have undermined my faith that the process has been undertaken in good faith.

The Temporary Chairman: I urge Members to heed the exhortation I made a few minutes ago for brief speeches so that as many Members as possible can speak on this important amendment.

Alan Beith: I shall do my best to meet your requirements, Sir Nicholas.
	I am in favour of a regional assembly for my own region, the north-east, and therefore strongly oppose amendment No. 20, which is a clear Conservative fiat determining that even if the north-east voted by a large majority for a regional assembly and the legislation was in place, it would be denied the opportunity to have one, which is quite wrong. However, I make a plea to the Minister on behalf of my constituents and people in other parts of the north-east in the remaining two-tier areas who are a minority of the population. The Labour manifesto referred to Xpredominantly unitary" local government in regions that are to be allowed to proceed to a regional assembly. That condition is already satisfied in the north-east.
	In its present form, the Bill would require areas where it has proved difficult in the past to create unitary local government to have it. That decision would require the people in the region who wanted a regional assembly to vote for unitary government, whether or not they wanted it in that form. However, the Bill ensures that the decision about whether they will get an assembly is made by the vast majority of people who live in areas that already have unitary government. That majority would be confused by the question and would have no desire to determine the local government of the remaining two-tier areas—they would not be in the least interested in the fate of local government in areas in which they do not live.
	I shall underline for the Minister's benefit the difficulties experienced during previous attempts to create unitary government in Northumberland. The county is too large and diverse to be a single-tier authority—it stretches from Berwick in the north across to Haltwhistle in the west—so there is strong opposition to the proposal. If a unitary Northumberland were the only option, some people might choose it to keep the name XNorthumberland" and the association with the county, but it is a very large local government unit. The alternative of reducing six districts to three is often criticised from the centre because their population is relatively small, even though they cover a huge area. Either way, we are likely to face a worrying system of unitary government to which a section of the population is strongly opposed on fairly good grounds. We would be asked to decide the question of a regional assembly in the light of a wholly separate question. As the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) pointed out, that gives the confusing impression that this is all about local government powers: it is not—it is about central Government powers and how they can be devolved effectively.
	The Minister and the Government will put a lot of people in rural Northumberland in a difficult position if they tell them that they can have a regional assembly only if they have a particular system of unitary local government. If they do not want that system, they cannot have a regional assembly. Slightly more realistic, perhaps, is a situation in which people may not bother voting because their local government system will be decided by people in Tyneside, Teesside, Hartlepool and all the other unitary areas that make up the majority of the north-east's population. In fact, their votes may be crucial to our getting a regional assembly or not—it may be a close-run thing. In that case, they should be allowed to vote on whether they want a regional assembly. They may well have strong views—in my case, I am strongly in favour of an assembly—and we must not allow that choice to be subverted by a decision on an issue which the Minister must know has been difficult to resolve in previous local government reorganisations.
	There may well be a route to a workable system of unitary local government, but I can hardly imagine a worse way of going about it, or a worse way of hobbling the campaign for a regional assembly, than a decision that has nothing at all to do with it.

The Temporary Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman has set a good example, which I hope will be followed.

Jim Knight: I shall do my best, Sir Nicholas. I wish to comment on two aspects of the amendments, which I shall vote against.
	The first aspect is the proposal to ask the Electoral Commission to come up with the wording of the question and any necessary preamble. I am proud of the fact that we live in a parliamentary democracy, and I believe that the wording and the preamble should be agreed here in Parliament, not delegated to a less accountable body, even one as highly regarded as the Electoral Commission.
	The other amendments on which I shall comment—at slightly greater length, if you will forgive me, Sir Nicholas—are those relating to the preamble. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in particular, questioned the need for a preamble. I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He will be delighted to know that this time next week, I shall be celebrating Christmas in his constituency—[Interruption.] I shall not be going to his house, he will also be pleased to know.
	If we do not have a preamble, the Government will be accused of hiding our motives. It is important that it be spelled out clearly to the electorate that they have a choice between the status quo and replacing the two principal levels of local government with a unitary authority and a regional assembly. That seems clear, but I draw the attention of the House to clause 8, dealing with the provision of information to voters. I agree with the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). It would be wrong to have a long preamble. The choice should be made clear to voters in advance. Clause 8 makes provision for that, especially in subsection (2), which states:
	XThe Electoral Commission may take such steps as they think appropriate to provide for persons entitled to vote in the referendum such information as the Commission think is likely to promote awareness among those persons about the arguments for and against each answer to the referendum question."
	That places a requirement on the Electoral Commission to provide exactly the information called for by the hon. Member for South-West Devon.
	I contrast that with the approach of the Opposition. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who has just left the Chamber, spoke about clarity and honesty. The amendments that he tabled would add a whole essay to the preamble. Amendment No. 54 would make it necessary to tell people that the referendum was advisory. Amendment No. 20 would inform them that there would be no action until three regions had voted for a regional assembly. Amendment No. 22 would provide a detailed description of local government reorganisation. Under amendment No. 38, the constituency of the directly elected members would have to be set out. Amendment No. 23 would explain the threshold that the Opposition wish to impose. All those together amount to an incomprehensible essay. I hope that, given his comments, the hon. Member for South-West Devon in particular will vote against this group of amendments.
	Finally, I shall add a comment of my own on the preamble, which I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider and deal with on Report. Subsection (2) states:
	XWhere it is proposed to establish an elected regional assembly, it is also intended that local government should be reorganised into a single tier in those parts of the region that currently have both county and district councils."
	I fear that that may be confusing to electors who live in areas with three tiers of local government, because it does not make it clear that parish councils would not be included in that reorganisation into a single tier. I am sure that most hon. Members would understand the provision, and later in the Bill the meaning is made clear, but as a preamble to the referendum question, it may be confusing to electors. I ask my right hon. Friend to reflect on that.

Gary Streeter: I shall also be brief, Sir Nicholas, in the hope of winning your praise as well.
	I should like to focus on one issue relating to the amendments: getting maximum information to the people who may be voting in the referendums. I think that it was Ernest Bevin—I know that the Minister has modelled his political career on this Labour bigwig—pleaded many years ago with the Labour party not to send him naked into the negotiating chamber. If the Bill is enacted, we will be sending our constituents blind into the ballot box and they will be voting on a series of questions about which they have inadequate information. We all want to trust the people, but before we can trust them to make a decision, we must inform them and ensure that they have the requisite information to make an informed choice. We have to spell out exactly what they would be voting for, but the preamble and question as they are configured in the Bill simply do not do that. What people know as they take part in referendums in years to come will be dwarfed by what they do not know about the new elected regional assemblies and local government reform.
	Clause 19 gives us a clue about some of things that people will not know, as the information will be available after a referendum. For example, they will not know about
	Xthe electoral areas into which the region is to be divided...the number of electoral areas or the name by which each electoral area is to be known".
	We know how significant the name of a district or constituency is to local people. They will not even know
	Xthe total number of members to be elected to the assembly",
	so they will not have a clue what the assembly will look like. Perhaps even more worryingly—it is vital to spell out this information in a preamble or in some other way—people will not know about the precise powers, functions and responsibilities of what they are voting for.
	When I approached the Standing Committee some weeks ago, I very naively assumed that strategic transport decisions would be taken by the elected regional assemblies. I did so because I thought that that was what the White Paper said. It states that a transport strategy
	Xwill spell out plans to address congestion, improve public transport and road links, and ensure that the transport system supports sustainable economic growth".
	That appears to make it fairly clear that the regional assemblies will have significant decision-making ability and power in relation to transport decisions. In the Standing Committee, I asked the Minister whether the regional assembly would make decisions on where road bypasses were installed. He said no and told me that that would remain the province of the Government. Unless we spell out what is happening, many people will vote for an assembly in the belief that the bypass that they have wanted for years is within their grasp because of the impression that local people will have power over such decisions. That is complete balderdash, as that is not what the Bill would give them.
	Unless we can spell out exactly what people will get, we will be leading the electorate up the garden path. I still do not believe that that explanation can be given in any form of preamble, as it will come at the wrong time. The ballot paper is not the right place for such information. I believe that we need an active Parliament that clearly defines all the powers, and that an executive summary should be sent to each potential elector well in advance so that he or she can make an informed and coherent decision. Unless the Minister can deliver on that tonight, I shall vote in support of the amendments.

Robert Key: I wish simply to underline all the comments that have been made about the importance of local government's delivery of services. I think that we will lose a great deal in that regard. Most people do not know that every single local authority has nominated a member of our regional chambers who will take decisions every day on the important strategic issues, including waste, transport and a range of other things. We will lose that under the Bill. I would rather ensure that every local authority was indirectly elected under the existing system than see its replacement by 30 people who have neither the dedication of local government councillors nor the desire to fight for a seat in this House. What sort of people will they be to take over those functions?

Adrian Flook: In order to be brief, I wish to speak mainly to amendment No. 55 and about its recognition of the importance of the county and district set up, primarily as it exists in Somerset.
	The south-west region is very much a man-made construct that is of modern hue and has no connection whatever with anyone in Somerset. As the Bill stands, when a local voter goes into the polling booth, should the referendum ever take place, he will be confused even by the question of what region he lives in. Somerset is the county of cider, cricket, the renaissance of the Wurzels and Somerset clotted cream, rather than that of Devon.

Gary Streeter: Oh, come on.

Adrian Flook: Somerset clotted cream is, as we know, far superior to that of Devon.
	The voter will also wonder, when he walks in to the polling booth, what a single tier is. He will not know that local authorities represent a single tier, because he has lived under the administration of Somerset county council and Taunton Deane borough council. Will he be aware, as he votes, that Bristol, Swindon, Torbay, Exeter, Gloucester and Plymouth are already unitary? Will he also be aware that he is at a disadvantage compared with his colleagues in the north of the so-called region of which he is part? Will he have thought that the urban areas will have different needs? The Liberal Democrats who control Somerset county council keep telling us that the area is rural, although they never do anything about that. Will the voter also be aware that, if there are to be unitary authorities in Somerset, Taunton would be part of the west Somerset unitary authority—which, ironically, would be good for the Conservatives? Although I get on very well with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), I am not sure that the people of Taunton get on well enough with the people of Bridgwater to want to be in the same local authority.
	A regional area is a construct that has no relevance whatever to anyone in Somerset. That is not surprising, because the regional development agency, on which the regional assembly would be based, has been completely useless to the people of Taunton. When I wrote to the RDA asking what contribution it had made to the Taunton constituency, it tried to dress up its contribution, but in fact the money that it had spent had been given to it by English Partnerships. The real keystone, the Government office for the south-west, was, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, for the convenience of Government. He also talked about an elected convenience of local authorities. In fact, we miss the point if we have regional assemblies based on a regional construct, because what we need is democratic ownership. That is why I shall be voting for the amendment.

Michael Jack: I firmly believe that the terms of amendment No. 39 should be supported. In relation to the preamble, anyone would find it difficult to agree on a word that everyone would be satisfied with, but simple questions are what referendums are about, and we should have two such questions: one on the regional assembly and one that makes people aware of what the local government implications are. My constituents would certainly not welcome finding the borough of Fylde subsumed into a city of the Fylde, dominated by Blackpool. There is antagonism of an historic nature there, and people need to be alerted to the situation.
	I agree with the comments that have been made about the need to ensure that people have full and adequate information before they reach the ballot box. Having this type of statement in the preamble is not the place to debate the issues of the moment on this matter. If, however, the amendments are lost and this statement does appear, the Minister should tell us at what reading age it has been aimed. I would like to know why, for example, no alternative form of display for this information has been proposed. It could have been displayed perhaps not in a paragraph but in bullet point form. Perhaps the skills of tabloid journalists could have been applied, in a positive sense, to convey a lot more information to people, so far as the text is concerned. The enthusiasm for regional government was demonstrated to me last Friday when I met members of the north-west CBI. In an altogether random but none the less interesting straw poll of about 60 business people, only two voted positively for this proposal. I believe that the use of two straightforward questions is the way forward.

Nick Raynsford: We have had an interesting debate that has focused on three main issues: whether there should be a preamble and whether there were precedents for it; the use of a single question linking the issue of the regional assembly to the unitary local government arrangement, as against the preference of some Members for two questions; and the definition of regions. I shall try to deal with all those points while responding on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond).
	Amendment No. 39 would require any order made under clause 1—that is, one to hold a referendum—also to direct the Electoral Commission to determine the question or questions. Amendment No. 11 would also leave the form of the preamble to the Electoral Commission, but Parliament, through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, gave a specific role to the commission. What we propose is entirely consistent with that role, which is to comment on the intelligibility of UK national and regional referendum questions and to be consulted when the question or preamble is set by subordinate legislation.
	The 2000 Act does not give the commission the responsibility to set the question and understandably so, as it is meant to be above the political fray such as that which we have seen today over the form that the referendum question should take. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) emphasised, such decisions should ultimately be taken by an elected Government who are answerable to an elected Parliament.
	As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge explained, amendment No. 11 has other implications.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, as he has little time. If he rejects the notion of the Electoral Commission setting more than one question, will he at least allow the possibility of there being more than one?

Nick Raynsford: I shall come to that in a moment. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me, as I want to try to address the point through a series of logical steps. Otherwise, I will not be able to cover the ground in the relatively short time available.
	I have sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge on the importance of the electorate understanding the conclusions of the boundary committee review of their region. We also believe that voters should be aware of the implications for local government when they cast their vote, but our approach has been to keep the preamble relatively short and general, highlighting the intention to move to wholly unitary government if an elected assembly is to be established.
	However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman and all Members of the House that we also intend to put out a factual statement to voters in the run-up to a referendum, which would include more detailed information on the local government changes recommended by the boundary committee. I have listened carefully to the debate, and I can say in response to the questions raised by a number of Members that we would be perfectly prepared to consider having a map to set out the whole region and illustrating it with further information on the number of counties and other districts in that region, if that would be helpful. We want to ensure that electors are fully informed of the implications.
	Accepting amendment No. 11 would also mean that no statement on the intended functions or powers of the proposed assembly could be included in the preamble unless those functions and powers were defined in an Act. This is just another example of the Opposition's delaying tactics, which we have rejected. I believe that the Liberal Democrats have rejected them too.

Philip Hammond: The Minister has conceded readily that conducting the boundary review will take approximately a year. Does he really think that it would be impossible for the Government to get their act together and put the legislation to set up the assemblies through Parliament within a year?

Nick Raynsford: As I have made clear to the hon. Gentleman in many previous exchanges, we are following exactly the same precedent that was adopted in the examples of Scotland, Wales and London whereby a referendum was held to determine whether the Government should legislate to allow the creation of the relevant Parliament or Assembly. We are following exactly the same procedure and we will ensure that information is made available in a comprehensive form, so that people are fully aware of what they are voting on. We intend to publish a statement on the proposed powers of the elected assembly based on our White Paper proposals so that electors are properly informed before they cast their vote.

Andrew Lansley: How can the Minister, based on the White Paper, assert in the preamble that the activities that would be carried out by the assembly are those
	Xcarried out mainly by central government bodies,"
	especially in respect of regional economic development? The only transfer of a central Government responsibility for regional economic development in the White Paper is the appointment of the chair and members of a regional development agency. Everything else is already done either regionally or locally.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a hugely important issue—the appointment of members of regional development agencies and the oversight of their work. Their work is crucial to economic development in regions, and we are giving the elected regional assemblies that role and responsibility as well as oversight of a number of other areas. [Interruption.] I have not time to elaborate on that this evening. In response to an earlier intervention, I have already given the details of the powers in relation to housing and I could give details about a number of other matters, but time is limited. Let me simply stress that the powers relate coherently to regional functions that must be discharged in a region. Powers relating to economic development, transport planning, housing planning, wider land use planning, environmental planning and cultural issues, for instance, are best discharged at regional level and will form the substance of the work of the elected regional assemblies.
	The Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 28, 29, 30 and 51 ask for a separate question on local government reorganisation. Amendments Nos. 30 and 51 set out two different formulations for the question. That is a fairly typical Liberal Democrat approach: whenever there is a chance of being simple, avoid it and try to be complicated. Let us have a proliferation of questions and a proliferation of talking shops!
	I remember only too well the parallel situation involving the Greater London Authority. The Liberal Democrats wanted two questions then. They wanted to separate the mayor from the assembly: they did not want a mayor and an assembly working together. They always go for two questions rather than one if they can. It is a sad comment on the Conservative party—and it is probably why, according to the opinion polls, it now has only 27 per cent. support—that it has followed the Liberal Democrats down this fruitless path. Both parties are completely out of touch.
	I disagree with both of them. The move to a single tier of local government is an integral part of the regional assembly package. Without rationalisation, a regional assembly will add complexity to the structure of government and lead to an undesirable proliferation of tiers of government. We want a clear division of responsibilities between different tiers of government, and clear lines of accountability between those tiers and the voters. In all parts of the United Kingdom where we have devolved powers to Parliaments or assemblies—Scotland, Wales and Greater London—local government is unitary, and it is entirely logical to have a unitary framework of local government in any region that opts for an elected regional assembly.
	Amendments Nos. 19, 22 and 38 would all add information to the preamble. I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is trying to achieve, at least in the first two amendments. He wants to ensure that voters know which local authorities are in their regions, and what local government changes would be intended to result if an elected assembly were established. I am, however, less impressed by the wording. Why does the hon. Gentleman want to list countries rather than counties, and why has he left out non-metropolitan districts? But I will pass over that. I have already given an assurance that we are happy to consider including a map and an appropriate description, which will ensure that people are properly informed.
	Amendment No. 38 is slightly different. It seeks to set out in the preamble what the electoral districts would be for directly elected members of an assembly. It is somewhat confused, in that the Electoral Commission, rather than the Boundary Committee, will advise on electoral areas. Clause 19 provides that the commission should give that advice after a referendum has been held and when an elected assembly is to be established.

George Osborne: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford: No, I have no time.
	By contrast with amendment No. 11, the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 31 would remove the preamble altogether. That is a curious proposal, as I have already pointed out. [Interruption.]

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The Committee may not wish to listen to the Minister, but I do. 10 pm

Nick Raynsford: The Liberal Democrats' wish to remove the preamble is curious, given their strong advocacy in the debate for the Electoral Commission's proposed preamble; but I do not expect consistency from the Liberal Democrats.
	Amendment No. 54 tries to redraft the first sentence of the preamble and emphasises the fact that the referendum is advisory, but our intention is to be guided by the referendum result. If people do vote yes, we intend to establish an assembly; if they vote no, we intend not to do so. That is why, in the wording of clause 2(2), we have said:
	XYou can help to decide".
	By not stating, XYou can decide", clause 2(2) already reflects the fact that the referendum is advisory. The Electoral Commission considered the wording and was content with this approach. Through other amendments, hon. Members are seeking to place great store by the commission's views on the wording of the question and of the preamble. So I trust that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will not press amendment No. 54 to a vote.
	Amendment No. 49 seeks to replace the current wording of the preamble with that proposed by the Electoral Commission. As I have said, we take the commission's views very seriously indeed, and we will consider its comments carefully, along with some comments made during the debate, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who made a valid point about parish councils. We will consider all such comments before deciding whether it is appropriate to amend the Bill, and if so, at what stage.
	Amendment No. 50, which was moved by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), would delete from the preamble any reference to local government reorganisation. I imagine that he intends it to be consequential on his other amendments, which add a separate question on reorganisation. I have already explained why we do not regard that as appropriate. We do not accept the Liberal Democrat wish for a continued proliferation of tiers of government, and for more talk, more talking shops and more politicians. We want streamlined structures, we want clarity, and we want action, not words.
	I turn to amendment No. 20. We have already discussed, under clause 1, the issue of a threshold. Now, the Opposition want to set another hurdle before elected assemblies can be established. If the amendment were accepted, three or more regions would have to vote in favour of an assembly before any could be established. We all know that interest in having an elected regional assembly varies in different parts of the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) rightly made the point that if individual regions want an elected assembly, there is no reason whatsoever why they should be denied. It is a classic comment on the views of the Conservatives that they would deny individual regions the opportunity of an elected regional assembly. No wonder they have such little representation in the north-east.
	We heard an extraordinary contribution from the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). In a speech that reminded me of medieval theologians debating angels dancing on the head of a pin—given his very real interest in theology, he will probably consider that analogy carefully—he tried to justify his own current rejection of regions that he himself designated, as Secretary of State, in the mid-1990s. He ended up disowning the whole process of local government reorganisation over which he presided. That is the most extraordinary example, certainly since the time of Mr. Tony Benn, of a former Secretary of State disowning virtually everything that he himself actively promoted when in government. His own legacy was dismissed as—in his own words—a Xload of old guff".
	I do not see a variation of interest as a reason to hold back progress in the regions where interest is most advanced. If people in one or two regions vote to establish a regional assembly, I see no reason why the Opposition should deny them that choice. We believe in letting people in the regions make a choice, and we want them to determine the future of their regions. The Opposition want to hold them back, and the Liberal Democrats want simply to delay and to have endless talking shops. So I urge the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw his amendment, and if he does not I urge the House to reject it.

Philip Hammond: I will do no such thing. I realise that the Minister was under time pressure, but he has not replied to the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) made about the north-west regional assembly. I hope that he will write to him on it. I should also tell the Minister that, before trying to score a point out of a printing error, it is always a good idea to get the latest version of the Order Paper, rather than yesterday's version.
	We can sum up what the Minister told us at the end of this debate, which has been about making information available, ensuring that it is fairly presented, and ensuring that the significance of the question is correctly understood by electors.
	At the end of the debate, the Minister has conceded that the only significant power that will be devolved down from central Government to the newly elected regional assemblies will be the power to appoint the chairman of the regional development agency. I suggest to the Minister that if he had the honesty to put that in the preamble rather than talking about
	Xactivities that are currently carried out mainly by central government bodies"
	he would find that the level of interest—however low it might already have been—would decrease still further.
	The Minister has simply failed to address the concerns that have been expressed from my right hon. and hon. Friends and the concerns with which the amendments seek to deal; making sure that electors have the information that they need to deal with the question and that any preamble is presented fairly and objectively. It should be prepared, ideally, by an independent body; if not, it should at least at least include proper, factual information and not a lot of Government spin. If the Minister wants to know the definition of Xguff", he only has to look at his own words. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the amendment tonight.

It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, The First Deputy Chairman put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	The Committee divided: Ayes 172, Noes 296.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Entitlement To Vote

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 2, line 36, leave out from 'at' to second 'the' in line 37 and insert
	'a parliamentary election in any parliamentary constituency, any part of which falls within the region and his address on the electoral register falls within'.

Sylvia Heal: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 25, in page 2, line 37, at end insert—
	'(1A) Where there is a proposal to reorganise local government, only people living in the relevant local government areas may vote on such a proposal.'.

Philip Hammond: Amendment No. 48 would amend the franchise for the referendum as it is defined in clause 3. At first glance, the clause might appear unexceptional. Subsection (1) states:
	XA person is entitled to vote in a referendum held in a region . . . if on the date of the referendum he is entitled to vote at the election of councillors for any electoral area in the region."
	In other words, the local government—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Will Members who are remaining in the Chamber please be quiet while the hon. Gentleman moves the amendment?

Philip Hammond: Thank you, Mrs. Heal.
	The franchise that will apply is the local government franchise. However, throughout our deliberations on the Bill thus far, the Minister has told us that elected regional assemblies will not be about the exercise of local government powers sucked up from existing tiers of local government. In fact, he has told us the contrary: regional assemblies will have as their business the exercise of powers—to use the words of the statement in clause 2—
	Xcurrently carried out mainly by central government bodies".
	I put it to the Minister, therefore, that it is grossly illogical to use the local government franchise for the referendum on that question when he claims that elected regional assemblies will primarily dispense powers that were previously exercised by central Government.
	The two franchises are not identical. European Union citizens living in England are entitled to vote in local government elections, and would thus be entitled to vote in the referendum as the Bill is drafted, but not in parliamentary elections. Our amendment proposes that the franchise applicable should be the parliamentary franchise, and that an elector entitled to vote in a particular regional referendum will be any elector who is entitled to vote in
	Xa parliamentary election in any parliamentary constituency"
	all or part of which is within the region. That allows for the possibility that a parliamentary constituency may fall within two regions. I do not expect that to happen, but it is always possible. The provision is qualified by the requirement that an elector, in order to be eligible to vote in the referendum, should have an address on the electoral register in the region.
	If the Minister objects to that revision of the franchise, he must say why, given his claims, it is more appropriate to use the local government franchise for the referendum rather than the parliamentary franchise.
	If the Minister insists on using the local government franchise, it will tend to support the Opposition's suspicion that the elected regional assemblies will be more about taking powers away from local authorities and about a different way to exercise local powers than any genuine measure of devolution.

Andrew Lansley: I am entirely following the point that my hon. Friend makes. I wanted to establish why the Government have proceeded in this way, so I read the notes on clauses, as one tends to do, only to find that there are notes on clauses 2 and 4, but none on clause 3. So I cannot even find out where the Government started on this issue.

Philip Hammond: We will look to the Minister for further elucidation. My hon. Friend will have discovered, as I have, that it is sometimes unwise to rely too much on the explanatory notes, which tend to tell the reader what the Government want him to think the Bill says, rather than what it actually says on a closer reading. The amendment seems pretty logical, and I look forward to hearing the reason why the Minister will resist it if, indeed, he wants to do so.

Matthew Green: I obviously want to speak to amendment No. 25, but before doing so, I shall touch on amendment No. 48, tabled by the Conservatives. We are a little interested in that amendment because we believe—we seek the Minister's clarification on this—that British citizens who live in Germany can vote in that country's regional elections but not its national elections, so the group of people who can vote in local elections will be eligible. We wonder whether the amendment is a bit of anti-Europeanism by the Conservative party. Conservative Members are desperate not to mention Europe these days.

Desmond Swayne: I can clearly understand the argument for using a local franchise in elections to the assemblies, but we are talking about the determination of a constitutional issue, which is quite properly a matter for the parliamentary franchise. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that distinction?

Matthew Green: I can see a slight distinction, but the amendment would rule out some European citizens who live in the United Kingdom being able to vote in the referendums, which, after all, are only indicative. Whether those people can vote will depend on the area in which they live. Perhaps I should use the phrase Xregion of Europe", although I know that Conservative Members will not be keen on it. The Conservatives obviously do not want any other European citizens to be able to vote in the referendums, so we know where they are coming from, even if they will not be so explicit themselves.
	I come now to amendment No. 25, which is my main reason for speaking. Under that amendment, where local government reorganisation is proposed so that a two-tier system will be reduced to a unitary structure, only people who live in that area could vote on that proposal. The Minister has said that he will consider our proposal for two questions, although he has not been persuaded by that argument. Under that amendment, if there were two questions, the franchise for the referendum would be restricted to those people who live in that area, thereby solving the problem in the Bill.
	We have heard that the north-east may choose to hold a referendum. Under amendment No. 25, the people of Newcastle, who already have unitary government, will be able to vote on whether Northumberland, which currently has a two-tier system, should have unitary government. So we seek to ensure that the decisions on changing local government are taken by the people who are directly affected. Once again, we are telling the Government to trust the people. If they are prepared to do that, they will find that there is greater support for regional government and that they are more likely to win the regional referendums.

Christopher Leslie: I believe that the Committee may have made some progress this evening—

Edward Davey: When the Minister was not here.

Christopher Leslie: I have been here, for good or ill, throughout much of the debate today.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said in moving his amendment that one reason why we should use the parliamentary franchise is that powers will be taken from national level, not local level. I think that that was essentially his argument.

Philip Hammond: I am sure that the Minister would not want to disappoint me. He will know that I said that the Government claim that the purpose of these regional assemblies is to devolve power down from central Government.

Christopher Leslie: I was so hopeful, but my hopes for the hon. Gentleman have been dashed on the rocks. What a great pity. I was about to welcome his acceptance, at last, of the truth behind our proposals: elected regional assemblies will take powers from Whitehall and from central Government, and not from local government. It is a pity that the Conservatives have not dealt with that.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge knows well why it is best to use the local franchise register in this case. It is not simply a case of quoting precedent, although that is important. The local register was used in the Scotland, Wales and London referendums, and is also the basis for electing Members of those assemblies. We plan to use the register for electing members of regional assemblies, too. A strong argument exists that there should be a common approach for all sub-national referendums and elections. That is an important point.
	The Liberal Democrat spokesman also spotted that the local register includes relevant citizens of the European Union who are resident, as well as life peers. Those are the only practical differences from the parliamentary register. What does the Conservative party have against life peers voting in these referendums? Why should not Councillor Lord Peter Smith, the leader of Wigan council and the former chairman of the north-west regional assembly, be entitled to vote for an elected regional assembly? Why should Lord Hanningfield, the Tory leader of Essex county council, be precluded from voting? What do the Conservatives have against those fine upstanding citizens?
	In terms of the European Union citizen provisions, I remind the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that those came into force in 1994 and 1996. Why should the Conservatives now be frightened of using their own provisions? Regional government is sub-national, sub-parliamentary government.

Andrew Lansley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made clear, the reason is that what we are discussing is not a decision but an advisory referendum to the Government in relation to the exercise of a parliamentary responsibility. Lord Hanningfield, good man that he is, has an opportunity to comment on and decide on this matter in another place. He does not need to have a vote in the referendum to do that.

Christopher Leslie: I am not quite sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. I had a feeling that he was slightly warmer towards our European friends and neighbours than some others on the Conservative Benches, and I am most disappointed with that particular argument. These are reciprocal arrangements for sub-national government arrangements, and I do not see why the advisory referendum for elected regional government should be any different.
	In respect of amendment No. 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), the argument is familiar, and we have rehearsed it in discussions about clause 2. The Government do not believe that we should have a separate question on local government restructuring, so the amendment would be redundant. In any case, we believe strongly that unitarisation is integral to the creation of elected regional assemblies. It is part of the package in relation to streamlining the system, and it is necessary if a new regional tier of elected government is to come into place. Two tiers of local government below regional assemblies would be one too many. I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats are setting their face against that. No other local government reorganisations have been subject to a vote by people in the areas affected, so at least this referendum is adding the option for people to express their views on the total package proposed. Amendment No. 25 is unnecessary and redundant.
	A very strong case exists for using the local franchise register. I urge the House to reject amendment No. 48.

Philip Hammond: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said, which was not difficult as he did not say very much. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made the point concisely that a parliamentary responsibility will be discharged by the Secretary of State on the basis of advice given in a referendum. It is not appropriate that persons who are excluded from voting in a parliamentary election should be entitled to vote in that referendum.
	I now come to the great logical flaw in the Minister's position. An EU subject or a peer, for example, cannot vote for a national Government to exercise powers such as the power to appoint the chairman of a regional development agency. If those powers were, by any chance, devolved to an elected regional assembly, the use of the local government franchise would enable those people to participate in electing the body that would exercise the powers. That is completely illogical and gives the lie to the Government's assertion that the bodies are mainly about transferring powers down from central Government. It underscores what the Opposition have always suspected: the bodies will be more akin to overblown local authorities than to devolved centres of power coming down from Westminster and Whitehall.
	In view of the timetable arrangements and the fact that a Division would leave us with virtually no time to debate the next group of amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	It being five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, madam deputy speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4
	 — 
	Referendum Period

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 3, line 7, at end add—
	'after taking account of the advice of the Electoral Commission as to the period required for the proper conduct of the referendum having regard to all relevant circumstances'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendment: No. 27, in page 3, line 7, at end add—
	'( ) Any order issued under subsection (1) above must set a referendum period lasting not less than 30 days, excluding weekends and bank holidays.'.

Philip Hammond: Clause 4 deals with the referendum period for the purposes of part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It says that
	Xthe Secretary of State must by order determine the referendum period for a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section 1."
	That relates to the order that will call a referendum in a given region.
	The referendum period is a significant time window that must be defined. It will have an impact on matters such as the recording of election expenses and the publication of election material, and will constrain the participants in the election, with one notable exception. The Government, masquerading inappropriately as a neutral party, will be allowed to continue publishing material and doing things that would not be permitted by other participants right up to the 29th day before the referendum is held. They will be able to use the power and the purse of the state to pursue a partisan position in the debate that the referendum will address.
	Because of the Government exemption, it is doubly important that the referendum period be correctly set. The Electoral Commission has been appointed to become involved in such matters and in the conduct of a referendum in the attempt to inject impartiality and objectivity into the process, so it would be wholly appropriate for the commission to advise the Secretary of State—we do not suggest that the commission should take the decision—on the time that will be required for the proper conduct of the election. That is appropriate to ensure that the period is set in an impartial fashion that is not biased in favour of one side or the other.
	We must bear in mind the fact that, whatever the referendum period, the Secretary of State and the Government will be in the unique position of being able to distribute their material unconstrained until 28 days before the referendum. It is not appropriate that the Secretary of State, who is partisan in such matters, should have the loudest voice in determining the referendum period. It is, however, entirely appropriate that the Electoral Commission should have a voice that is heard.

Edward Davey: Amendments Nos. 47 and 27 are two ways of doing a similar thing. We want to restrain the Government's power by ensuring either that someone other than the Government sets the period for the referendum—amendment No. 47 suggests the Electoral Commission—or that there is a minimum period for it. There is a danger that a Minister could push through a referendum quickly, which would stifle debate, the campaign and the very democracy that lies behind the Bill. As I am sure that that is not the Minister's intention, we tabled amendment No. 27.
	Our amendment would ensure that there is a minimum period for the referendum of not less than 30 days, excluding weekends and bank holidays. That is effectively a six-week campaign. We could have gone for a four or five-week campaign, but referendum campaigns are unusual beasts. They are one-offs. Campaign organisations are not like normal political parties. They are set up purely for the purpose of fighting a particular referendum. Although those organisations might begin to get prepared before the referendum is called, they need a little longer than a normal general election or council campaign to uphold the democratic process established in the Bill.

Philip Hammond: It has just occurred to me that the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. In practice, the yes campaign will not be a purely local campaign set up for each referendum; it will be a rolling campaign, based on the Campaign for the English Regions. It is the no campaign that will have a standing start and will be disadvantaged.

Edward Davey: I am discouraged—or encouraged, perhaps—that the hon. Gentleman believes that the no campaign is so badly organised, primarily because I thought that the Conservative party was the no campaign. However, I do not want to be ruled out of order and shall return to the amendment.
	I well remember the 1997 general election campaign when I was first returned to the House. That was a six-week campaign. The previous Prime Minister, John Major, must regret the fact that he let us have that campaign.

Kevan Jones: How does the six-week campaign fit with the clear and vehement opposition that the Liberal Democrats portrayed in Committee to all postal ballots?

Edward Davey: The two things are completely different. The ballot relates to the actual vote on the ballot paper. I am talking about ensuring that there is a minimum period during which we can engage the electorate in the debate. We would be happy to discuss with the Minister whether it should be 20, 25 or 30 days. We are not theological about that. What we want to do is to ensure that the Bill stipulates a minimum period so that a referendum cannot be rushed through. The Minister keeps stressing the importance of the Bill, and we need a minimum period to allow the people of a region to engage in the debate.

Desmond Swayne: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a need for a maximum length for the campaign. Has he not noticed that people are already campaigning? Indeed, the whole process of taking soundings is, in itself, a surreptitious campaign. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that there is agreement. The Minister was involving the peers in that, at least from a sedentary position, in the debate on the previous amendment. Bishops—bishops, I ask you—have been campaigning for this nonsense for months with absolutely no constraint whatsoever. Back to their vestries with them.

Edward Davey: Well, bless my soul. One felt like saying Xtally ho" to that intervention.

Matthew Green: rose—

Edward Davey: I do not want to detain the House much longer on this relatively minor matter, but my hon. Friend wants to make a very important point, so I will let him intervene.

Matthew Green: Does my hon. Friend agree that a campaign of reasonable length, and not a very short one, will increase the chances of a reasonable turnout in the referendum, which we would all like to see? There will be time to get the messages across, and that may encourage turnout.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A reasonable campaign would certainly help with turnout, and the Government would like a good turnout. They are taking measures in this Bill and elsewhere to encourage people to participate democratically. I hope that the Under-Secretary is listening not only to his Whip but to the power of this argument, and that he will accept amendment No. 27 or, if not, return with his own amendment on Report.

Christopher Leslie: This is an interesting debate, but I am conscious of the hour, so I shall try to keep my remarks brief.
	Clause 4 is needed because the 2000 Act does not set a technical referendum period, but leaves it to be set by the provisions of another Act; hence it appears in the Bill. The Conservative amendment would require the Secretary of State to take account of advice from the Electoral Commission before making the order setting the referendum period. Although the 2000 Act does not explicitly set out how a referendum period is to be determined, it sets a timetable for designating assistance to the official yes and no campaigns. It also sets out arrangements for the date of the poll. Taken together, those periods in effect give a standard referendum period of 10 weeks, so in general our intention would be to set that as the referendum period.

Edward Davey: I am rather concerned that suddenly the Government have turned volte face, and having criticised the Liberal Democrats for wanting more consultation and discussion, they now want to delay and extend these times, when we requested a minimum campaign of a mere six weeks.

Christopher Leslie: I am troubled by the anti-democratic tendencies of the Liberal Democrats in seeking to curtail a fair and reasonable campaign period. I believe that 10 weeks strikes the right balance, and in any case—this answers the questions asked by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond)—it is for the Government to decide the referendum period, subject of course to parliamentary scrutiny.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that 10 weeks is a good length of time to ensure that the campaign receives both the vigorous debate that we want and the maximum turnout in a region? The Liberal Democrats' view reinforces their anti-democratic stance in being opposed to all postal ballots.

Christopher Leslie: That was indeed a very worrying development among Liberal Democrat Members in the Standing Committee. Their expressed intention to turn their face against all postal ballots calls into question the very title of their political party, but we should leave that for another day.

Desmond Swayne: Will the Minister give way?

Christopher Leslie: I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman.

Desmond Swayne: The Minister is very generous. I entirely understand the argument for a 10-week campaign. It will clearly be advantageous to have such a long campaign, particularly for the no campaign because previously, of course, the Government were able to distribute information in a way that the no campaign was not, and it gave them a good start. However, why will the Minister not include in the Bill his choice of campaign length, or at least give an indication of it? As someone who questions the whole enterprise, I ask him to imagine that campaign—those 10 weeks of misery and exhaustion.

Christopher Leslie: If only I had time to detail what we learned about the hon. Gentleman in Committee and his history of fending off allegations of rigging ballots in Scotland. I know that he was given an honourable discharge—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order.

Christopher Leslie: On amendment No. 47, if we are to use the expected 10-week period, what is the point of requiring the Electoral Commission to provide advice on the issue? In effect, it would be required to second-guess why the 10-week period is implicit in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. The amendment is unnecessary, but of course we are happy to discuss with the commission any practical implications of a longer or shorter campaign. However, I do not see the case for enshrining in statute the need to seek its advice on our intentions.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) tabled a reasonably probing amendment in amendment No. 27. While in theory it is possible to shorten the designated period for an official campaign, I cannot see that there are circumstances that would lead us to set a referendum period significantly shorter than the 10-week period I mentioned earlier. We would not wish to do so, and even if we did and went for a period of less than 10 weeks, an order would have to be introduced, debated and receive assent in both Houses. No doubt, tough questions would have to be answered then.

Hilton Dawson: In looking at the referendum period, will my hon. Friend consider the paucity of the Opposition's argument against regional government, particularly in the north-west of England? Can we be spared the ordeal of having to campaign too long against the Opposition's absurd posturing, particularly as some hon. Members are inclined to use the privileges of the House to attack people outside it?

Christopher Leslie: I suspect that there is a longer story to be told, but I tend to agree with my hon. Friend. Amendment No. 27 is unlikely to have much practical effect and, together with amendment No. 47, is unnecessary. I therefore urge the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge and for Kingston and Surbiton not to press them further.

Philip Hammond: We have had an interesting debate. I am not sure that I followed the intervention of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), but generally I am never quite sure that I do. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was indeed the culprit in the case to which the Minister referred, lest hon. Members fear that any outside party was being impugned.
	The Government are once again giving themselves extraordinary power and, in this case, do not even want to take advice. In our debate on clause 1 we did not get a chance to talk about the amendment that would delete subsection (9). I know that you would not want me to cover that ground now, Mrs. Heal. Effectively, however, as the Bill stands, once the Government see how the land lies, they have the power in a run-up to the referendum to cancel it. If, a couple of weeks from a referendum, things are looking a bit iffy, the Secretary of State, under clause 1(9), can simply call it off, which is an extraordinarily flexible power. At the other end of the process, he has complete flexibility in setting when the referendum period should begin.
	The Minister told us that he would normally expect that period to last 10 weeks. The initial and understandable reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West was that that is a long time. However, we must bear in mind the fact that the Government, until the referendum period begins, will have free reign to distribute literature and information supporting their position and the case for elected regional assemblies without the no campaign being able to respond and distribute counter-information.
	Perhaps 10 weeks is the right period. I am happy to concede to the Minister that that may be about right, but why does he not write it into the Bill? The unconstrained power of the Secretary of State to determine the start of the period, the end of the period and, having called a referendum, whether to let it go ahead or not, under the terms of clause 1(9), seems an excessive amount of discretion for the Secretary of State to have.
	I invite the Minister to consider the impact on local government and other institutions in the region while such a campaign is going on. There will be serious disruption.

Desmond Swayne: Does my hon. Friend consider that it would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister gave an indication of the circumstances under which it would be proper to have a campaign of less than the 10 weeks that he suggested, and the circumstances under which it would be proper for the campaign to last longer than that?

Philip Hammond: I am sure that that would have been helpful to the Committee. If the Minister wanted to intervene on me, I should be happy to take such an intervention.
	To return to the point about the disruptive effect of the campaign, that will be the final straw in the long disruption created by the whole process: the Secretary of State's consultation, then—most disruptive of all—the boundary committee's work, the jockeying for position, and the political battles that will be fought between districts and counties over the various combinations of unitary authority solutions that might or might not be proposed. All that will be a huge distraction from the issue that really matters to the people of this country—the delivery of good quality public services. That is what they want their local authorities to focus on. That is what they want their county councils, unitary councils and metropolitan borough councils to focus on.
	That is what people would like the Government to focus on, instead of diverting their attention time and again to the pet project of some Minister or other and leaving the public to look in dismay at the innumerable broken promises and missed targets that represent the Government's abysmal failure to improve the delivery of public services, especially in those parts of the country that have suffered a further squeeze as a result of the Minister's appalling recent local government settlement.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West raised the important question of the circumstances in which it might be appropriate for the Minister to propose a period longer than 10 weeks or shorter than 10 weeks. The Minister could speculate endlessly on different scenarios that might or might not arise in relation to any particular referendum. [Interruption.] No, I am sorry to disappoint the Minister; I shall not speculate endlessly on those scenarios. I do not need to, because I have proposed the solution: that the Electoral Commission should advise the Secretary of State of the appropriate referendum period, taking into account all the relevant factors.
	The Electoral Commission, working from the Minister's preferred period of 10 weeks, and the period of approximately 10 weeks implied in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, would be able to consider any particular circumstances in relation to the particular regional referendum in question, to decide whether there were any circumstances that called for a shorter period or, conversely, a longer period.

Desmond Swayne: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that his proposal is the best way of solving the problem. None the less, while it would not be possible for the Minister to speculate endlessly about the circumstances that might apply in respect of a shorter or longer period, he might at least give us the benefit of his speculation for five minutes. 11 pm

Philip Hammond: I would be most willing to take a short intervention from the Minister, but he does not seem willing to confide to the Committee his innermost thoughts.
	My proposal would ensure that, having taken into account any particular and pertinent circumstances in a region, the Electoral Commission would give its advice to the Secretary of State. I can inform the Committee that during the Standing Committee deliberations, we ascertained that the Electoral Commission has clearly stated that it will always be its intention to place in the public domain advice that it gives to the Secretary of State in connection with the Bill, principally by placing it on its website. That is significant because, as the Bill stands, the Secretary of State will take a decision on his own in accordance with criteria that will be invisible to the watching public and Members of the House. He will do so on the basis of information and advice provided to him by the Electoral Commission, which will be available to members of the public to analyse, so the decision that he takes will be capable of being scrutinised in the light of that advice. While I do not suggest that that is a likely outcome—indeed, I would not advocate such a scenario and I hope that it does not come to that, as I for one am anxious not to increase the litigious tendency of our society—it would, at least in theory, ensure that the Secretary of State's decision was practically capable of judicial review where he had not taken the advice of the Electoral Commission or where his decision was clearly at odds with the advice that it had given.

Christopher Leslie: rose—

Philip Hammond: I am delighted to see that the Minister at last wishes to intervene. Perhaps he will share with the Committee his thoughts about the circumstances in which a longer or shorter period might be appropriate.

Christopher Leslie: I can certainly share my view about having a longer or shorter period, as I believe in making all contributions as short as possible. The hon. Gentleman is clearly stringing out his contribution to make it as long as possible, so that we will go to the wire on the very last occasion when we will have to sit until this hour on a Wednesday. I think that it is important that we note that point.

Philip Hammond: It is important that we note what the Minister has said. I am prepared to make a small bet with him that this will not be the last time when we are debating in the Chamber at 11 o'clock on a Wednesday, because I suspect that the Government will find that in their rush to get legislation through the House, they may occasionally have to ask some of their long-suffering Back Benchers to stay a little longer in future than they think they have been promised. However, time will tell.
	The problem with this debate, as the Minister knows, is not only the overall timetable, but the intermediate guillotines, which have meant that although the rather small issue with which the amendments deal has perhaps had adequate time for debate, discussion of some of the very significant issues that had to be dealt with earlier in the evening was curtailed and at least two major groups of amendments were not debated. That is a disgrace.
	Having listened to what the Minister said and having—I hope—made my views well known to the Committee, I shall not seek to press the amendment to a Division. I say to the Minister, however, that when we have studied the precise implications of a longer or shorter period, we will return to the issue on Report, possibly by tabling an amendment seeking directly to constrain the Secretary of State's flexibility, rather than simply to pass the issue over to the Electoral Commission for advice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Desmond Swayne: I have one question for the Minister on clause stand part. Will he explain the status of the order and tell us what opportunities will be afforded to us for its scrutiny?

Christopher Leslie: It is a statutory instrument. The clause is self-explanatory.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Bill (Clauses 1 to 4) reported, without amendment; to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Natural Health Products

Gwyn Prosser: I rise to present a petition on behalf of some 600 people in Dover, Deal and elsewhere, who are supporters of Consumers for Health Choice. I am pleased to give the petition my full support.
	The petition reads as follows:
	To the House of Commons
	The petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the Proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
	And The Petitioners Remain, Etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Andrew Stunell: I am delighted to present two petitions. The first is from Janis Larkun of Marple and contains 199 signatures of constituents of mine. The second is from Debra Allan of Hazel Grove and contains 221 signatures of constituents of mine. Both are petitions from Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters. The petition declares that:
	Consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies, and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the Proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
	The Petitioners therefore Request That the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
	And The Petitioners Remain, Etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Michael Jabez Foster: I have the honour to present petitions on the part of Mrs. Pamela Ellis of Bio-Five-O in Hastings and Mr. Crawshaw of Rye in precisely the same terms as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser). I shall not repeat the words, but I request that the House take note of them.
	To lie upon the Table.

Tom Brake: I rise also to present a petition, and Members will be familiar with the text of said petition. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has introduced the same. The petition is from Noah's Health Food Store, and it carries the signatures of more than 500 constituents in Carshalton and Wallington. The petition expresses their concerns about the potential impact of European Union legislation on traditional herbal medicinal products.
	To lie upon the Table.

Affordable Credit

Andrew Selous: I rise to present a petition on affordable credit on behalf of several hundred of my constituents in the Dunstable area.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of Constituents Concerned about Debt on our Doorstep.
	Declares that millions of people in the United Kingdom struggle with poverty and debt; that this issue should be brought to the attention of Parliament.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Social Exclusion Unit to tackle the issue of extortionate lending and to support affordable credit.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Football Head Injuries

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Ian Gibson: I rise to introduce a debate on football head injuries, which have emerged as an important issue not only to the football world, but to many people up and down the land who are concerned about events that happened some years ago and which demand a Government reaction. First, however, let me describe the background.
	In the treatise XThe Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", usually called the XPrincipia", Isaac Newton proclaimed the three laws of motion and the law of gravity. He addressed the problem of the drag on a spear moving through a medium. One of his laws states that change of motion is proportional to the motive force impressed and takes place along the straight line in which force acts.
	Loosely translated, that means that a football's behaviour is covered by the statement that the rate of change of momentum of a football is equal to the applied force. That is often translated as describing football rotation in terms of change of angular momentum brought about by an applied torque. It is Christmas, so I am allowed such a deliberate physical and mathematical analysis of a ball moving through the air.
	A book entitled XThe Science of Soccer" by John Wesson has just been published. It describes how David Beckham can bend a ball in mathematical and physical terminology that I would not dare to translate in the House. Although I have great respect for the Hansard writers, they would not be able to take down the mathematical terms. I do not want to defer to them, as the problem is real.
	The book describes the ideal bounce of a ball, kicks, bending the ball, intercepting a pass and rebounds from the crossbar. There is a phenomenon to describe, as it would excite people. Equations have been developed in relation to those particular events. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who represents Norwich, South, is looking for a way to excite people so as they understand physics and mathematics. What better way than understanding such issues as how a ball is thrown in, the torque involved and the forces that apply to a football as it rotates through the air? I suggest that they might return the interest of many young people to science.
	Heading, which is the subject of our debate, is also described in the book, which states:
	XSometimes the head is struck by an unseen ball,"—
	my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport might avidly remember that from his youth, as he paraded around the playing fields of England—
	Xor before the player can prepare himself".
	That would certainly be true of my right hon. Friend, although earlier this year I managed him very successfully through 45 minutes of sheer magic as he kept out the forces of the British embassy on a Japanese playing field.
	The book continues:
	XIt is then possible for all the ball's loss of momentum to be transferred to the head. In a severe case of a 50 mile per hour ball, the head could be moved an inch in a hundredth of a second., the force on the head corresponding to an acceleration of 50g"—
	which would be some speed up the M6, and quite unachievable in transport-torn Britain today. It continues:
	XAccelerations larger than this can lead to unconsciousness."
	When a sodden leather ball used to hit people's heads, the lace faced a certain way—unless Stanley Matthews kicked it across the penalty area at Tommy Lawton's head; the lace was always facing the wrong way as far as the opposition was concerned, but it hit Tommy Lawton on the head at the right time. When the head is hit by a ball, it moves a few inches. The speed of the head's movement depends on the velocity given to the ball. The head cannot move faster than a kick, because it is restricted by being anchored to the body.
	The problem is that people mistime headers. If people are hit on the head by a ball, momentum may be lost and transferred to the head. Many footballers will remember how, in the early years of their careers, they were hit by that sodden leather ball that came out of the sky, and their heads moved back. That sometimes resulted in unconsciousness; it often resulted in sore heads and blackouts, and players in the 1950s and 1960s were frequently taken off the field for such reasons.
	Let us think in terms of medical science. The brain can be likened to a blancmange in a bowl. When a certain part of it is hit, it wobbles. It is not restricted to one area; it moves around the circumference of the brain. I would expect the force of a wet ball to be some 180 lb. That might cause bruising, damage to the brain and some bleeding.

Adrian Bailey: I am glad that my hon. Friend initiated this debate. As he may know, January saw the tragic death of Jeff Astle, the former West Bromwich Albion centre-forward, renowned for his heading abilities during the era of hard, wet, heavy leather balls. At his post mortem the neuropathologist made it clear that years of heading a ball had contributed to his premature death at the age of 59. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Football Association should provide a fund to benefit the families of footballers who have effectively been victims of industrial injuries?

Ian Gibson: Other players have sustained similar injuries, and they deserve respect and a response from the Government.
	The worst that can happen is more extended bruising to the brain. A subdural haematoma can occur—a sort of blood clot. That has happened to many players. In this regard football is not unlike boxing or horse riding. Many injuries are caused to people falling off horses. I am quite sympathetic to riders as long as they do not chase foxes, if I may refer to a debate we had earlier in the week.
	We have heard anecdotes about players of the 1950s and 1960s who played with heavy balls before they were changed in the 1960s. The leather coating then became polyurethane, the bladder disappeared, and players now use a completely different kind of ball. In my professional footballing days, I remember being rather frightened at having to head a ball; however, it was something that we did because, after all, we were real men, we did not flinch and we went for the ball. I remember many of my young colleagues at school being frightened to head a ball, and being called a sissy as the ball descended on them.
	A few years ago, Billy McPhail of Glasgow Celtic, who scored a hat trick in the Scottish cup final, tried to take up this issue in an industrial tribunal and failed. He tried to claim that some of his health problems were caused by his frequent heading of a football. The deaths of Alf Ramsey, Danny Blanchflower, Joe Mercer and many other great names have been considered, and it has recently been shown that degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's were associated with their problems in their latter years. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) said, the Jeff Astle case marks an epic moment in this struggle to get recognition of the effects of heading.

Tom Watson: Does my hon. Friend share my view—it is doubtless also the view of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey)—that Jeff Astle was the best header of a ball since Dixie Dean? Of course, in this day and age the modern footballer would not be subject to the challenges to which Jeff was subjected, because a modern ball weighs only 14 to 16 oz. The new FIFA-standard ball does not have the absorption of older footballs, and the FA is conducting a 10-year study, under the stewardship of Dr. Miles Gibson, on the effects of heading a ball. The study is in its second season, and hopefully recommendations will be made throughout the 10-year programme.
	Does my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) agree that another reason why modern footballers would not be subject to such head injuries is the impact of modern coaching? Now, far more young people are taught proper heading techniques, which were not available in Jeff Astle's day. Such coaching is in part the result of the legacy of the late Sir Bert Millichip, who sadly died earlier today. He was a great son of West Bromwich Albion football club—a life president and former chairman—a former chairman of the FA, and a great advocate for the black country. My hon. Friend will doubtless agree that this House should pay tribute to the great man, and wish his family all the best in their hour of need.

Ian Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I of course go along with that. Many people say that there is danger in playing football and that such risk is part of the fun, but the real difference is that the technology has changed. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the ball has changed and the risk factor has gone down by an inestimable amount. In that sense, the risk factor differs from some others that have been discussed in relation to rugby football.
	The coroner at Burton-on-Trent ruled that Jeff Astle died of a degenerative neurological disease, and of an industrial disease, after 20 years of heading a heavy ball. Perhaps it is time to consider how we can declare a disease an industrial disease. Many Members on both sides of the House will remember the difficulties associated with getting diseases such as asbestosis declared industrial diseases. Securing recognition of the correlation between a particular event and a particular disease involves a long, hard fight.
	The neurologist who gave evidence at Burton-on-Trent said that the damage to Jeff Astle's brain was localised at the front. He said that, although it was hard to prove,
	Xfrom the evidence the persistent heading of the ball could be a factor in the loss of Mr. Astle's faculties and his behaviour."
	Although only 59, Jeff Astle was indeed in the early stages of Alzheimer's. Death by industrial disease was recorded, and at that point the whole argument moved forward 100 years in terms of defining what an industrial disease might be. That is why we should take this verdict very seriously.
	It is not just professional players such as Jeff Astle who are affected. Many amateur players have headed the ball 2,000 to 3,000 times in a season. I am aware of studies that are being carried out now, but they are studies of young people who are playing the game with a different football and will be studied over their careers. What about the people who played in the 1950s and 1960s and were subjected to this pressure? It is no use glamourising football in those days. Players did not get #25,000 a day; they got #12 a week maximum, for delighting crowds with their skills and performing in front of much bigger crowds than we sometimes see today. We owe them a lot in terms of the heritage of association football.
	A psychiatrist said in relation to Jeff Astle:
	XIt seems obvious to me that a repetitive mild head trauma over the course of an amateur or professional footballer's career may increase an individual's risk of developing dementia."
	If we think in terms of 1,500 assaults on the brain in a year, it is clear that something dramatic could happen to someone's brain cells, and those cells would not be replaced as the individual developed in their 50s and 60s as they would have when they were in their 20s and 30s.
	There are those who have tried to ridicule the matter, saying that the next thing we will want is headgear for the players, as for boxers. We do not want that; we want a recognition that the technology has changed and that those people, for whatever reason, were subject to that kind of physical assault on their brains.
	I still coach footballers—one or two people in the House tonight have been subjected to my coaching through the parliamentary football team, and rough I am—and we sometimes play with the ball being kept below shoulder height. If that became a rule, it might destroy the Nationwide first division. Having watched my local team, I see that it is a question of getting the ball out to the wing and crossing it for someone to get their head on to it and, with a bit of luck, it will go in the net. It would be good if players could keep the ball below shoulder height.
	The question is how we measure an industrial injury. At what point do we take this seriously and not try to ridicule it? At what point do we recognise that players in the 1950s and 1960s were subjected to a hazard that no longer exists? We should recognise that young people heading a ball may be doing damage to their tender brains, and think about some kind of compensation for the older players.
	I know that Jeff Astle is not the only player affected. A famous Norwich City full-back, Bryan Thurlow—one of the great X59ers" who took the giant-killing Norwich team to the semi-final, beating the mighty Manchester United on the way—died recently from Alzheimer's disease. His nickname was XUnconscious" because he spent a lot of time heading the ball off the line and doing all sots of amazing things because he loved heading a ball. He was fearless and that heavy, water-soaked ball probably did something to his head.
	Many people here will remember being taught how to dubbin a ball. How to lace up a ball was a skill that we learned at our father's side, and someone who could do it was real star. Those days are passed, but dubbin did not do much to make the ball less of a deadly weapon.
	The dizziness, headaches, stars and unconsciousness came from that ball, as did the later problems that have developed in the brains of players. That seems a rational explanation. An inquiry should be carried out and we should do a real assessment of the players involved who might be developing illnesses now.
	I did a programme last night in Norwich about Bryan Thurlow and the station received some 20 calls in which the families and widows of players from Southend, Colchester and so on talked about some of the brain diseases that the players had developed. It seems to me that there is a really good project in that. We should consider whether there is a case to be made for recording such injuries as industrial injuries. In this country, we treat many other illnesses as industrial diseases, and we should compensate the players who have suffered in the way that I have described. We owe it to them and to sport in general to show that we care about people.
	The Government could act in concert with the Professional Footballers Association or the Football Association, I do not care which. We should show some respect for the many great players whom many hon. Members grew up watching. They deserve a proper assessment of what, in some cases, seems to have killed them.

Richard Caborn: I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for securing this Adjournment debate. The subject is clearly important, and I know my hon. Friend has a great love of football: as he said, he continues to coach the Commons football team.
	It is fitting that we should be discussing football in the Chamber tonight, and I want to associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) said about the late Sir Bert Millichip, who made a major contribution to football in the UK. We are grateful for that, and send our condolences to his family.
	When he described the subject under discussion tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North demonstrated the skill that one would expect from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. It was a great lesson in physics.
	I should like to say at the outset that the Government recognise that all sport contains an element of risk, and it would be neither possible nor in many cases desirable to remove that challenge. However, it is essential to look at how sport can reduce and manage unnecessary risks and, in particular, reduce the incidence of serious illness, injury, permanent disability or even death.
	As Minister for Sport, I have been actively looking into ways in which we can help sport develop the most up-to-date and responsive safety and medical support in the UK. I therefore very much welcome the opportunity to debate these issues with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North. My hon. Friend mentioned the death of the great Jeff Astle, as well as the circumstances of other ex-footballers. Football has been aware of this issue for some time, but the loss of Jeff at the young age of 59, and the subsequent coroner's report, have brought this matter to the fore.
	It is clear to me that football is taking this matter very seriously. Both the FA and the Professional Footballers Association recognise the importance of this subject and have already undertaken significant work on heading in football. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East noted, those organisations have invested in a 10-year study to investigate fully the possible dangers of heading the ball. The study started in 2001 and involves 33 elite footballers, who are the subject of regular MRI scans and neurological assessments. As Minister for Sport, I welcome this very important initiative.
	Indeed, both FIFA and UEFA have commended the FA's proactive response to this subject. It is only fair to say that England is leading the way in this type of research.
	I am also aware that the football authorities have taken significant steps to improve the game, while at the same time making every effort to protect players involved in what is, after all, a hard physical sport. Those steps have included the development of the modern football, which is now non-porous and produced to very strict FIFA criteria. Indeed, the laws of the game regulate the weight and size of modern balls used for both training and playing. Also, the improved football coaching standards to which reference has been made already have included the development of heading techniques, with a strong emphasis on the quality of training and not the quantity. In 2001, FIFA sponsored a symposium on sports injury and safety issues which considered, among other things, head injuries in football.
	In my view, football has recognised the importance of the issue and is responding at a national and international level. However, the effect of heading on former professional footballers is a complex matter, which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North understands. There is evidence documenting subtle brain injuries among people who have played football for many years, while other studies have suggested that there is no significant risk. A number of experts believe that although there may be risks from heading footballs, these are likely to be relevant only to a small minority of professionals with prolonged careers.
	Over the past six years, the FA has monitored papers submitted to it or published by scientific journals on heading footballs and whether that could cause changes in brain structure and function. The FA has given full consideration to the medical evidence and the scientific information on this subject. I am aware that the FA takes the view that many of these reports and articles have been of questionable quality, based on very small samples of amateur players. Furthermore, as all the studies have been retrospective, the findings can be affected by many other variables.
	What is clear is that most experts agree that the data collected so far are inconclusive and that further longer-term studies are required. Clearly, the joint FA/PFA study will go a long way towards addressing the lack of concrete information.
	I understand that the Professional Footballers Association is looking at compensation for injuries on behalf of former players, to which my hon. Friend referred. I take the view that it is only right that sport give full consideration to these cases, but many in football would agree that that must be done in the light of greater understanding of the medical and scientific evidence on the subject.
	My hon. Friend has focused on football. The Government recognise that safety and medical issues affect all sports at all levels. Improvements in sport safety and medical services not only increase performance but lead to the reduction of unnecessary illness or injury caused through participation in sport. Those in sport have for some time recognised the vital role that those services play in providing the highest standards of care for our top athletes, as well as ensuring that sport in the UK can be safely and sensibly enjoyed by all.
	The Government are therefore committed to ensuring that sport can reduce and manage the necessary risks through the development of appropriate safety and medical support. Greater confidence in the quality of these services can increase the number of participants in sport as well as leading to longer participation. That requires a co-ordinated approach and, as such, the Government are promoting a number of key initiatives across the UK to help sport improve its safety and medical services.
	In recognition of these issues, the Government commissioned a working group on safety and medical provision for sport in the UK to look at how best we can prevent the incidence of serious injury, illness, disability and death in organised sport. The working group was chaired by the consultant neurosurgeon Peter Hamlyn. Its report raised a number of important issues in relation to sports safety and medicine and highlighted the need for extra help and support to be given to governing bodies to assist them in managing safety issues in their sport.
	This work also formed part of the Government's cross-departmental accidental injury task force, which published its report earlier this year highlighting the ways in which the Government are providing a co-ordinated response to injury prevention across society.
	The work is being taken forward by UK Sport, which will be producing guidance information on health and safety issues for sport. The aim is to provide support which will be of assistance to governing bodies but which will avoid overly bureaucratic systems and procedures. It will cover three areas. First, there will be a summary of existing legislative requirements for governing bodies. Secondly, there will be sports-focused risk assessment templates that governing bodies could use and disseminate among their member organisations. Thirdly, there will be case studies covering health and safety policies and practices for different types of sport.
	That is not the Government's only involvement in such work. My Department is currently working closely with UK Sport, the National Sports Medicine Institute of the United Kingdom, the British Olympic Association and other key sports medicine professional organisations to look at ways of improving the training and development of sports medicine practitioners. In particular, the recognition of sports and exercise medicine as a distinct and essential medical discipline would have a significant impact on the safety and medical support that we are able to provide to people participating in all levels of sport—from school playing fields to people taking part in elite sport. My Department will also be working closely with Department for Health and the Department for Education and Skills on that development.
	Those initiatives provide examples of the way in which the Government are addressing the issues raised by my hon. Friend this evening, but I should like to leave the House with these thoughts. We live in an increasingly risk-averse society and there is concern that, because of that, many people involved in sport, either as participants or organisers, may give up their favourite pastime. They may have concerns about personal injury or, possibly, fear of litigation resulting from a sporting accident. Such action is becoming increasingly prevalent in sport in the UK.
	Clearly, safety is paramount in all sporting activity, and it is important that we both recognise the risks involved in sport and acknowledge that sport has a duty to reduce and manage those risks. However, I believe that all the wonderful benefits that involvement in sport can bring to our society, such as improved health, social inclusion and education—to name but a few—greatly outweigh the risks. We have to put the risks in context. Sport can come to the rescue of so many youngsters who might otherwise get involved in drugs or other undesirable activities and take them off the streets. We have to keep things in proportion. The great desire to achieve—
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

Deferred Divisions
	 — 
	Section 5 Of The European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2002 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
	The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 153.

Question accordingly agreed to.